<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (11) TMI 585 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400830</link>
    <description>A Section 7 insolvency application by a single real estate allottee was treated as maintainable on the facts, because the 2019 Ordinance and 2020 Amendment did not defeat a petition already pending when the amendment came into force. The memorandum of understanding was construed as a buyback arrangement, not a conventional agreement for sale, since it provided for compulsory repurchase, post-dated cheques, and transfer or resale rights. On the evidence, the claimant was found to be a speculative investor rather than a genuine allottee, so the insolvency claim could not proceed as that of a financial creditor and the admission order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:48:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 585 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400830</link>
      <description>A Section 7 insolvency application by a single real estate allottee was treated as maintainable on the facts, because the 2019 Ordinance and 2020 Amendment did not defeat a petition already pending when the amendment came into force. The memorandum of understanding was construed as a buyback arrangement, not a conventional agreement for sale, since it provided for compulsory repurchase, post-dated cheques, and transfer or resale rights. On the evidence, the claimant was found to be a speculative investor rather than a genuine allottee, so the insolvency claim could not proceed as that of a financial creditor and the admission order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>