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.
The High Court rejected the resolution professional's petition seeking a stay on the acquisition process under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995. It held that provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot prevail over the welfare statute aimed at protecting slum dwellers. Allowing the corporate debtor's "asset" preservation would deny slum dwellers the statutory promise of redeveloped premises indefinitely, at their cost, despite no fault. The IBC provisions are not meant to defeat slum redevelopment and allied statutes. Granting relief would put a premium on corporate wrongdoing and allow defaulting corporate debtors to secure restraint against slum dwellers' welfare through the resolution professional. The resolution professional's argument for a preferential right to self-redevelop was rejected as untenable since the corporate debtor had already obtained a Letter of Intent while being the owner. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.