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 Section 7 application by allottees from different sub-projects of the township satisfied the statutory threshold and whether the township could be treated as a single real estate project for the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The expressions "allottee" and "real estate project" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are controlled by their meanings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The threshold under the second proviso to Section 7(1) is project-specific and must be tested with reference to allottees of the same real estate project. The material on record showed multiple separately registered projects within the township, with distinct categories, sanctioned plans, and RERA registrations. The documents relied upon by the appellants did not establish that the entire township constituted one project for the purpose of the proviso, nor that the applicants formed the requisite critical mass for any particular registered project.
Conclusion: The Section 7 application was not maintainable as filed, and the dismissal of the insolvency petition was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: For triggering corporate insolvency by homebuyers, the statutory threshold must be satisfied by allottees belonging to the same real estate project, and where the record shows separate registered projects within a township, allottees from different projects cannot be aggregated to meet that threshold.