SC upheld the termination of the Development and Supplementary Agreements by Respondent No.1 Society as lawful, effective and based on prolonged contractual defaults unrelated to insolvency. It held that the developer only had a limited licence, with no proprietary or transferable interest in the land; hence no "asset" or "property" of the corporate debtor subsisted on the second CIRP commencement date, and Section 14 IBC moratorium could not revive or protect extinguished contractual rights. NCLT lacked jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) IBC to interfere with such termination. SC further held that HC rightly exercised writ jurisdiction to direct processing of approvals for Respondent No.8 and that no violation of natural justice occurred. The appeal was dismissed.
SC upheld the termination of the Development and Supplementary Agreements by Respondent No.1 Society as lawful, effective and based on prolonged contractual defaults unrelated to insolvency. It held that the developer only had a limited licence, with no proprietary or transferable interest in the land; hence no "asset" or "property" of the corporate debtor subsisted on the second CIRP commencement date, and Section 14 IBC moratorium could not revive or protect extinguished contractual rights. NCLT lacked jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) IBC to interfere with such termination. SC further held that HC rightly exercised writ jurisdiction to direct processing of approvals for Respondent No.8 and that no violation of natural justice occurred. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
