TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court ruling on construction contracts & liabilities: key points</h1> <h3>JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED Versus JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED, SURAKSHA REALTY LIMITED, LAKSHDEEP INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED And JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED Versus JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED</h3> JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED Versus JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED, SURAKSHA REALTY LIMITED, LAKSHDEEP INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED And JAYPEE ... Issues Involved:1. Scope of Reconciliation of Accounts2. Adjustment of Rs. 212 Crores Bank Guarantees3. Adjustment of Pre-CIRP Dues (Rs. 49.63 Crores, Rs. 2.33 Crores, Rs. 1.19 Crores)4. Mutually Settled Amount of Rs. 12.26 Crores5. Payment of Proportionate Interest6. Claim of Rs. 70.89 Crores towards Land Swap Deal7. Reliefs to the AppellantsSummary:Scope of Reconciliation of Accounts:The Supreme Court directed reconciliation of accounts between JAL and JIL concerning amounts advanced by JIL to JAL towards construction contracts and the extent of liabilities discharged by JAL. The reconciliation was not to determine what amount was payable to JAL by JIL.Adjustment of Rs. 212 Crores Bank Guarantees:The claim of Rs. 212 Crores related to Bank Guarantees issued by JAL and invoked by the lenders of JIL was not to be adjusted from the amount payable to JIL. This amount is already claimed by JAL in the CIRP process of JIL and should be treated as per IBC proceedings.Adjustment of Pre-CIRP Dues:The claims of Rs. 49.63 Crores (RA Bills), Rs. 2.33 Crores (Facility Management Bills), and Rs. 1.19 Crores (Hospitality Services) were pre-CIRP dues. The reconciliation process was not meant to determine these claims, which should be addressed in the CIRP process. The Adjudicating Authority erred in considering these amounts for reconciliation.Mutually Settled Amount of Rs. 12.26 Crores:The Adjudicating Authority correctly included Rs. 6.13 Crores (half of Rs. 12.26 Crores) in the amount receivable by JIL as it was mutually resolved to be shared equally between JIL and JAL.Payment of Proportionate Interest:The direction of the Adjudicating Authority to pay JIL/Home-Buyers of JIL Rs. 649.52 Crores with proportionate interest was unsustainable. The Supreme Court had declared that the amount of Rs. 750 Crores along with accrued interest was the asset of JAL, and there was no direction to pay interest to JIL/Home-Buyers.Claim of Rs. 70.89 Crores towards Land Swap Deal:The claim of Rs. 70.89 Crores by JIL was related to a Land Swap Deal and was not part of the construction contracts. The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected this claim as it was outside the scope of reconciliation.Reliefs to the Appellants:- Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 302 of 2023: Partly allowed by setting aside the direction to pay proportionate interest to JIL. Other prayers were rejected.- Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 507 of 2023: The findings on issues (a), (d), and (e) in favor of JAL were unsustainable. The Adjudicating Authority's direction in Paras 109, 110, and 111 was affirmed except for the direction to pay proportionate interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
