Court ruled interest alone on loan doesn't count as operational debt. App rejected due to interest inclusion below threshold. Dismissal upheld by NCLA...
Tribunal rules allow registrar to grant time to cure defects. Appeal refiling date after curing defects can't be treated as fresh filing date for limi...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 3, 2024Case LawsHC
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.
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 150 
