<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1945 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301465</link>
    <description>Funds advanced by a promoter under a memorandum of understanding and joint venture agreement were not a financial debt because they were contributed for development of a real estate project, not disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. The arrangement contained no assured return, no repayment linked to the passage of time, and no borrowing-like feature. The statutory explanation to section 5(8)(f) on amounts raised from allottees in a real estate project did not apply because the contributor was not an allottee under RERA. The transaction also did not have the commercial effect of borrowing, so the contributor was not a financial creditor and the insolvency petition was rejected in limine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 21:46:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1945 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301465</link>
      <description>Funds advanced by a promoter under a memorandum of understanding and joint venture agreement were not a financial debt because they were contributed for development of a real estate project, not disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. The arrangement contained no assured return, no repayment linked to the passage of time, and no borrowing-like feature. The statutory explanation to section 5(8)(f) on amounts raised from allottees in a real estate project did not apply because the contributor was not an allottee under RERA. The transaction also did not have the commercial effect of borrowing, so the contributor was not a financial creditor and the insolvency petition was rejected in limine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>