https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391195 Contractual extension of possession timelines, including force majeure delay, defeated the Section 7 insolvency trigger because the promoter showed that construction was delayed by a court stay, the completion date was extended on the RERA record, and possession was offered after the occupation certificate was obtained. On those facts, the Tribunal found no present default in amounts due and payable and held that the petitioners could not invoke the corporate insolvency resolution process. A refund claim could not, on the proved record, be used to commence insolvency proceedings. en-us Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:23:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391195 Contractual extension of possession timelines, including force majeure delay, defeated the Section 7 insolvency trigger because the promoter showed that construction was delayed by a court stay, the completion date was extended on the RERA record, and possession was offered after the occupation certificate was obtained. On those facts, the Tribunal found no present default in amounts due and payable and held that the petitioners could not invoke the corporate insolvency resolution process. A refund claim could not, on the proved record, be used to commence insolvency proceedings. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391195