Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2020 (10) TMI 231 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Delhi High Court: Allotee Exclusion, Settlement Terms Disputes, Supreme Court Challenge, Independent NCLAT Review The Delhi High Court addressed issues concerning an allotee's exclusion from insolvency proceedings, disputes over finalizing settlement terms, a ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                            Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                                Delhi High Court: Allotee Exclusion, Settlement Terms Disputes, Supreme Court Challenge, Independent NCLAT Review

                                The Delhi High Court addressed issues concerning an allotee's exclusion from insolvency proceedings, disputes over finalizing settlement terms, a challenge before the Supreme Court, and allegations between parties. The court emphasized the importance of hearing all interested parties, directed the IRP to submit settlement terms for review by the NCLAT, and refrained from examining the case's merits. Parties were instructed to present arguments before the NCLAT, which would independently consider the allegations and grievances without influence from the current order.




                                Issues:
                                1. Allotee's grievance regarding being excluded from insolvency proceedings.
                                2. Dispute over finalizing terms of settlement without hearing all allottees.
                                3. Challenge to the order dated 13th September, 2020 before the Supreme Court.
                                4. Allegations and grievances of the parties against each other.

                                Issue 1: Allotee's Exclusion from Insolvency Proceedings
                                The petitioner, an allotee/homebuyer in a project undergoing insolvency proceedings, raised concerns about not being included in the proceedings by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Despite an order freezing claims, the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) proceeded to finalize settlement terms without involving all allottees. The court acknowledged the urgency of the matter and directed the IRP to present the settlement terms before the NCLAT for a comprehensive hearing involving all interested parties, ensuring grievances are addressed in accordance with the law.

                                Issue 2: Finalizing Terms of Settlement
                                The petitioner argued that the IRP proceeded to finalize settlement terms without hearing all allottees, with only a portion of them being initially notified. The IRP claimed that notice had been issued to all allottees, and a significant number had already voted on the terms of settlement. The court emphasized the importance of hearing all allottees before finalizing settlement terms. It directed the IRP to submit the terms before the NCLAT for a thorough review and ordered that no action be taken on the settlement until all parties are heard and grievances addressed.

                                Issue 3: Challenge Before the Supreme Court
                                Respondent No. 3 and 4, also original allottees and financial creditors, had filed a civil appeal challenging the order dated 13th September, 2020, before the Supreme Court. The court noted this challenge and indicated that the matter was likely to be listed for hearing soon, without delving into the merits of the appeal. The parties were directed to present their arguments before the NCLAT, which would consider the allegations and grievances made by each party without being influenced by the current order.

                                Issue 4: Allegations and Grievances
                                The court highlighted that it had not examined the merits of the matter regarding the allegations between the parties. Both allottees and financial creditors, as well as the IRP, had made allegations against each other. The court directed the NCLAT to consider these allegations independently without being swayed by any observations in the current order. All pending applications were disposed of, with the directive to list the applications before the NCLAT for a hearing on 12th October, 2020, due to the urgency of the matter.

                                This judgment by Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court addressed the exclusion of an allotee from insolvency proceedings, the dispute over finalizing settlement terms, a challenge before the Supreme Court, and the allegations and grievances between the parties. The court emphasized the importance of hearing all interested parties, ensuring grievances are addressed, and directed the IRP to submit the settlement terms for review by the NCLAT. The court refrained from examining the merits of the case and directed the parties to present their arguments before the NCLAT, which would independently consider the allegations and grievances without being influenced by the current order.
                                Full Summary is available for active users!
                                Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                                Topics

                                ActsIncome Tax
                                No Records Found