Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional...
Debt and default were sufficiently proved from the Section 7 materials, including unit-wise allotment details, amounts paid, amounts claimed in default, and supporting allotment and sale documents, so admission of the CIRP was sustained. The NCLAT held that where allottees of a single real-estate project initiate insolvency, the CIRP must be confined to that project and cannot spill over to other separate projects of the same corporate debtor. The admission order was therefore modified to limit the CIRP to Raheja Shilas (Low Rise) only, while creditors linked to other projects were left free to pursue independent remedies. The CIRP was not closed, and withdrawal by settlement under Section 12A was left open.
Debt and default were sufficiently proved from the Section 7 materials, including unit-wise allotment details, amounts paid, amounts claimed in default, and supporting allotment and sale documents, so admission of the CIRP was sustained. The NCLAT held that where allottees of a single real-estate project initiate insolvency, the CIRP must be confined to that project and cannot spill over to other separate projects of the same corporate debtor. The admission order was therefore modified to limit the CIRP to Raheja Shilas (Low Rise) only, while creditors linked to other projects were left free to pursue independent remedies. The CIRP was not closed, and withdrawal by settlement under Section 12A was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
