Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount advanced by the petitioner under the memorandum of understanding and joint venture agreement constituted a financial debt so as to make the petitioner a financial creditor entitled to initiate insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The relevant test under section 5(8)(f) is whether the money was disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. The arrangement between the parties showed that the petitioner was a promoter participating in the real estate project and contributing funds for development and construction. There was no stipulation for assured returns, repayment linked to lapse of time, or any borrowing-like feature. The explanation inserted to section 5(8)(f) concerning amounts raised from an allottee in a real estate project did not assist the petitioner, because the petitioner was not an allottee within the meaning of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The transaction was therefore not a forward sale or purchase arrangement having the commercial effect of borrowing.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not a financial creditor and the amount invested did not constitute a financial debt. The insolvency petition was rejected in limine.