Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Appellate Tribunal Overturns NCLT Decision on Joint Application</h1> <h3>Mrs. Mamatha Versus AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.</h3> Mrs. Mamatha Versus AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Joint maintainability of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against two Corporate Debtors.2. Validity of the collaboration agreement and memorandums of understanding between the parties.3. Adherence to the procedural requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.Detailed Analysis:1. Joint Maintainability of an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Two Corporate Debtors:The primary issue addressed was whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) can be jointly maintained against two Corporate Debtors. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had initially rejected the application on the grounds that the I&B Code does not provide for a joint petition against two Corporate Debtors, particularly when they have collaborated for a Joint Venture. The Tribunal observed that the payment was made to one Corporate Debtor while the insolvency process was sought against both. Additionally, the application did not adhere to the required format, notably failing to name the Insolvency Resolution Professional, which is a mandatory requirement under Clause 3 of Sub-Section 3 of Section 7 of the I&B Code.2. Validity of the Collaboration Agreement and Memorandums of Understanding Between the Parties:The judgment delves into the Collaboration Agreement dated 3rd May 2013 between AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (Owner) and Earth Galleria Pvt. Ltd. (Developer). This agreement facilitated the development of a commercial complex on a piece of land owned by AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. The agreement authorized the Developer to undertake planning, designing, construction, development, selling, and marketing of the project. The Developer was also empowered to advertise the project, indicating it as a joint venture project with the Owner. Furthermore, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th June 2014 between Earth Infrastructure Ltd. (Developer) and the Appellant for booking a cineplex was highlighted, where the Appellant paid an advance in terms of the agreement. Another Memorandum of Understanding dated 6th February 2016 between the Appellant and the Respondents (Developer and Land Owner) was also discussed, wherein the Developer and Land Owner were collectively referred to as the 'Company' and the Appellant as the 'Allottee.'3. Adherence to the Procedural Requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:The judgment scrutinizes the procedural adherence under the I&B Code, particularly the requirement to name the Insolvency Resolution Professional in the petition. The Tribunal initially found the petition deficient in this regard. However, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the collaboration agreement and subsequent memorandums of understanding indicated a joint venture project, thus justifying a joint application against both Corporate Debtors. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that if two Corporate Debtors collaborate and form an independent corporate unit for developing land and allotting premises, a Section 7 application is maintainable against both jointly.Conclusion:The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the NCLT failed to consider the joint venture nature of the project and wrongly held that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could not be initiated against two Corporate Debtors. The judgment was set aside, and the case was remitted to the NCLT, New Delhi Bench, for admission if the record was complete. The Tribunal also allowed the Respondents an opportunity to settle the matter before admission. The appeal was allowed with no cost.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found