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

      Equality in Financial Creditor Status: The Supreme Court's Ruling in regarding the status of home buyers in CIRP proceedings under IBC

      15 January, 2024

      Contents
      Acts
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      2023 (10) TMI 949 - Supreme Court

      In this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical issue regarding the status of home buyers as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016. The appellants, who were home buyers in a project developed by Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., challenged a decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The NCLAT had ruled that the order of the Resolution Professional (RP), proposing different treatment for these home buyers compared to other allottees, did not warrant interference​​.

      The appellants had approached the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA), seeking refunds with interest due to delays in the project completion. During the IBC proceedings, the Committee of Creditors presented a resolution plan that distinguished between home buyers who had sought remedies under the RERA, including those who had secured orders in their favor, and those who had not. Home buyers who did not approach RERA authorities were given 50% better terms than those who did. This distinction led to the appellants' unsuccessful appeals and their approach to the Supreme Court​​.

      The appellants' counsel argued that, as per the amended definition of financial debt (Section 5(8)(f)), home buyer allottees in real estate projects should be considered financial creditors, and no distinction should be made within this group​​. In contrast, the counsel for the resolution professional contended that the appellants, having approached UPRERA, fell into a different sub-class of home buyers and were thus unsecured creditors​​.

      The court analyzed the definition of "financial creditors" and "financial debt" under Section 5 (7) & (8) of the IBC. The explanation to this section, introduced in 2018, explicitly deemed amounts raised from allottees under a real estate project as having the commercial effect of a borrowing, thus including home buyers and allottees of real estate projects in the class of financial creditors​​.

      Additionally, the court examined Section 18 of the RERA Act, which outlines the obligations of promoters to allottees, including the return of amounts with interest and compensation in cases of delay or failure to meet contractual obligations​​.

      Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the resolution professional's view, which suggested that once an allottee sought remedies under RERA and opted for a return of money, they should not be treated as part of the class of home buyers, to be unpersuasive. It emphasized that treating a segment of home buyers differently for another enactment's purposes was inequitable. The court also noted that such a distinction was a form of "hyper-classification" and violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law​​.

      In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and declared the appellants as financial creditors within the meaning of Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC. They were entitled to be treated equally with other home buyers/financial creditors concerning the resolution plan under consideration by the adjudicating authority. This ruling reinforces the rights of home buyers as financial creditors and upholds the principle of equal treatment under the IBC, ensuring that home buyers who seek legal remedies for their grievances are not disadvantaged in the insolvency resolution process​​.

      The impact of this ruling is significant. It strengthens the position of home buyers in real estate projects, particularly in situations where developers face insolvency proceedings. By affirming the status of home buyers as financial creditors, the Supreme Court's decision ensures that their interests are adequately represented and protected in the resolution process. This judgment also serves as a precedent for future cases where the classification of creditors might be in question, thereby contributing to more consistent and equitable treatment in insolvency proceedings.

      In summary, "Equality in Financial Creditor Status: The present Supreme Court's Ruling" presents a landmark judgment that clarifies the status of home buyers within the ambit of the IBC. It underscores the commitment of the Indian judiciary to uphold the principles of equality and fairness in the treatment of financial creditors, thereby reinforcing confidence in the insolvency resolution framework in India.

       


      Full Text:

      2023 (10) TMI 949 - Supreme Court

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax