<?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>2021 (5) TMI 112 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407233</link>
    <description>Amounts paid by allottees in a real estate project can constitute financial debt with the commercial effect of borrowing, so they may invoke section 7 as financial creditors rather than merely as decree holders on arbitral awards. However, the application was held time barred because default arose when possession was not delivered within the contractual period and the petition was filed beyond three years, with no material showing extension of limitation. The Tribunal also found the project to be a joint venture in substance, with both venture partners sharing development responsibilities, so initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor alone was not maintainable. Insolvency relief under section 7 was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Oct 2024 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 112 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407233</link>
      <description>Amounts paid by allottees in a real estate project can constitute financial debt with the commercial effect of borrowing, so they may invoke section 7 as financial creditors rather than merely as decree holders on arbitral awards. However, the application was held time barred because default arose when possession was not delivered within the contractual period and the petition was filed beyond three years, with no material showing extension of limitation. The Tribunal also found the project to be a joint venture in substance, with both venture partners sharing development responsibilities, so initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor alone was not maintainable. Insolvency relief under section 7 was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>