https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384343 The SC upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments treating home buyers and allottees as financial creditors, holding that the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and is neither manifestly arbitrary nor an unreasonable restriction on trade. It further held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act operate in different fields, with RERA providing project-level consumer protections and the insolvency code governing collective revival and value maximisation; both remedies coexist, but the insolvency code prevails in case of inconsistency. Section 5(8)(f), read with the 2018 explanation, was treated as clarificatory, confirming that advances from home buyers had from the inception of the Code the commercial effect of a borrowing. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384343 The SC upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments treating home buyers and allottees as financial creditors, holding that the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and is neither manifestly arbitrary nor an unreasonable restriction on trade. It further held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act operate in different fields, with RERA providing project-level consumer protections and the insolvency code governing collective revival and value maximisation; both remedies coexist, but the insolvency code prevails in case of inconsistency. Section 5(8)(f), read with the 2018 explanation, was treated as clarificatory, confirming that advances from home buyers had from the inception of the Code the commercial effect of a borrowing. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384343