Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Resolution Applicant Eligibility in Corporate Insolvency: former director/ promotor of the corporate...
    Challenges in corporate insolvency, particularly when dealing with contract terminations and arbitra...
    Equality in Financial Creditor Status: The Supreme Court's Ruling in regarding the status of home bu...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Power of NCLT/NCLAT vis-à-vis writ jurisdiction of the high court.
    Limitation Act and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankr...
    Law of Limitation - Insolvency Proceedings
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility: former promoters not automatically disqualified under Section 29A; clause-specific disqualifiers control.
    Whether a former promoter or director is ineligible under Section 29A turned on clause-specific disqualifiers rather than promoter status alone; the tribunal found no evidence that the statutory disqualifying conditions, including account classification as non-performing, applied to the applicant, and emphasized that eligibility requires a fact-specific application of the provision's clauses.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Wrongful invocation of bank guarantees not upheld where arbitration covers claims; liquidator may refile under insolvency law.
    The appellate tribunal found the liquidator's claims, including allegations of wrongful invocation of bank guarantees, were encompassed by pending arbitration and upheld deletion of the concessionaire from the insolvency-era causative-misconduct application, while permitting the liquidator to file a fresh insolvency application should subsequent arbitration facts necessitate separate action.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Financial Creditor Status: Home buyers must receive equal treatment in IBC resolution plans irrespective of RERA remedies.
    The Court held that the statutory explanation deeming amounts raised from allottees as having the commercial effect of borrowing brings home buyers within the class of financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC; it disapproved any subdivision treating buyers who pursued RERA remedies as a separate subclass, finding such differential treatment to be inequitable and violative of Article 14, and directed equal treatment of allottees in resolution plan consideration.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction protects review where specialised tribunals act beyond statutory powers; tribunals may only inquire into fraud.
    Writ jurisdiction remains available to correct a tribunal acting without statutory power; NCLT lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate MMDR Act lease disputes, so a writ challenging its order was justified. NCLT/NCLAT may inquire into allegations of fraud in CIRP, but they cannot adjudicate substantive statutory or quasi judicial disputes that require judicial review of administrative action.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Acknowledgement of debt extends limitation for IBC filings; recovery certificate or decree creates fresh cause of action to initiate CIRP.
    An acknowledgment in writing by a corporate debtor of a subsisting liability restarts the limitation period for initiating CIRP; a final judgment, decree or a recovery certificate, if dues remain unpaid, gives rise to a fresh cause of action permitting a financial creditor to initiate insolvency proceedings within the applicable limitation period measured from the date of that judgment, decree or certificate. Limitation questions are mixed fact and law issues requiring pleaded facts and evidence, and pleadings in an insolvency petition may be amended or supplemented when appropriate.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Suspension of limitation: moratorium under the insolvency code halts limitation, prioritising resolution before limitation resumes post-resolution.
    Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code suspends the running of limitation for as long as a company is under the moratorium imposed by Section 14, and this suspension should be read in harmony with the Resolution Professional's duty under Section 25(2)(b). Insolvency shifts control from the company's management to the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors, who focus on resolution rather than litigation, and limitation resumes when the company emerges from insolvency.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and Validity of Claims

      26 January, 2024

      Contents
      Acts
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law

      Reported as:

      2023 (11) TMI 782 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI

      Case Background

      The judgment in question revolves around three appeals filed against an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which declared an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as maintainable​​. The appeals were filed by corporate entities involved in a real estate project, who were respondents in the Section 7 application filed by the allottees of the project​​.

      Key Legal Issues

      1. Maintainability of Joint Application Under Section 7: The central issue was the maintainability of a joint application filed against three separate corporate entities involved in the real estate project.
      2. Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: The appeals challenged whether the Section 7 application filed by the allottees met the threshold requirements (default of more than Rs. 1 Crore) as prescribed under the IBC.
      3. Limitation and Validity of Claims: The determination of whether the claims of the allottees were within the limitation period and valid as per the criteria established in the IBC.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Joint Application Maintainability: The Tribunal examined the nature of the transactions and agreements involved in the real estate project. The collaboration agreements and the subsequent development of the project were intricately linked among the three appellants. This interconnection was deemed sufficient to treat the joint application as maintainable. The Tribunal relied on precedents like the MRS. MAMATHA VERSUS AMB INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS. - 2019 (1) TMI 1503 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI case and others, emphasizing the uniqueness of real estate projects in such contexts​​.

      2. Threshold Fulfillment under IBC: The appeals raised questions about the number of allottees required to initiate the CIRP under the amended Section 7 of the IBC. The Tribunal analyzed the claims and concluded that despite objections regarding limitation and the validity of certain claims, the threshold of 100 allottees was met. This conclusion was reached by considering the ongoing nature of the breach of contract, as the project remained incomplete, and the applicability of the judgments in cases like Samruddhi Cooperation Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd​​.

      3. Consideration of Limitation and Validity of Claims: The Tribunal refuted the argument that claims barred by limitation should not be counted towards the number of allottees. It highlighted that the continuous breach of contract, in this case, led to a continuous cause of action, thereby extending the limitation period. This was in line with Section 22 of the Limitation Act and the principles laid down in the SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VERSUS MUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD - 2022 (1) TMI 1404 - SUPREME COURT case​​​​.

      Conclusion

      The Tribunal upheld the maintainability of the joint application under Section 7 against the three appellants, considering their interconnected roles in the development of the real estate project. It also affirmed that the threshold requirement under the IBC was met and that the claims of the allottees were valid despite challenges based on limitation.

       


      Full Text:

      2023 (11) TMI 782 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax