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 :
        Insolvency and Bankruptcy

        2021 (8) TMI 1155 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

        📋
        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

        Tribunal rejects amendment request, upholds objection on MOU validity during moratorium. Clarifies IBC allottee definition pre-Manish Kumar. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's prayer for amendment of the earlier application and upheld the respondent's objections regarding the validity of ...
                      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.

                          Tribunal rejects amendment request, upholds objection on MOU validity during moratorium. Clarifies IBC allottee definition pre-Manish Kumar.

                          The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's prayer for amendment of the earlier application and upheld the respondent's objections regarding the validity of the MOU executed during the moratorium period and the determination of the insolvency commencement date. The Tribunal also clarified that the definition of an allottee under the IBC was clear prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in the Manish Kumar case.




                          Issues Involved:

                          1. Validity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed during the moratorium period.
                          2. Determination of the Insolvency Commencement Date.
                          3. Eligibility of the applicant as an "Allottee" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
                          4. Amendment of the earlier application based on the Supreme Court's judgment in the Manish Kumar case.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Validity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Executed During the Moratorium Period:

                          The applicant contended that the MOU dated 19.04.2018, which allotted 20 units to the applicant in lieu of the outstanding debt, was valid as it was executed before the appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The respondent argued that this MOU was executed in contravention of Section 14 of the IBC, which prohibits the transfer or disposal of any assets or beneficial interest during the moratorium period. The Tribunal noted that the application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was admitted on 09.03.2018, and the MOU was executed on 19.04.2018, during the pendency of the moratorium period, thus violating Section 14.

                          2. Determination of the Insolvency Commencement Date:

                          The applicant argued that the insolvency commencement date should be considered as 22.06.2018, the date when the order was uploaded and the IRP received it. The respondent maintained that the insolvency commencement date is the date of admission of the application, i.e., 09.03.2018. The Tribunal referred to Section 5(12) of the IBC, which defines the "insolvency commencement date" as the date of admission of the application. The Tribunal concluded that the mere incorrect mention of the insolvency commencement date in the public announcement by the IRP does not change the legal position, and the correct date remains 09.03.2018.

                          3. Eligibility of the Applicant as an "Allottee" under the IBC:

                          The applicant sought recognition as an "Allottee" under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC, based on the MOU and Apartment Buyer Agreements (ABAs). The applicant argued that the definition of an allottee was clarified by the Supreme Court in the Manish Kumar case, and thus, the applicant should be considered an allottee. The Tribunal examined Section 5(8) of the IBC and noted that the definition of "financial debt" includes amounts raised from an allottee under a real estate project, which was clear even before the Manish Kumar judgment. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's contention that the definition was unclear prior to the Supreme Court's judgment.

                          4. Amendment of the Earlier Application Based on the Supreme Court's Judgment in the Manish Kumar Case:

                          The applicant sought to amend the earlier application (IA/1442/2020) to reflect the clarified definition of an allottee as per the Manish Kumar judgment. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already submitted the claim in Form B as an Operational Creditor and referenced the MOU in the earlier application. The Tribunal held that these facts were within the applicant's knowledge at the time of filing the earlier application and did not constitute new information. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's prayer for amendment, stating that the grounds for amendment were not justified.

                          Conclusion:

                          The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's prayer for amendment of the earlier application and upheld the respondent's objections regarding the validity of the MOU executed during the moratorium period and the determination of the insolvency commencement date. The Tribunal also clarified that the definition of an allottee under the IBC was clear prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in the Manish Kumar case.
                          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