Directing the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter, the apex court said that the NCLAT must have notified the bank (Financial Creditor) before closing the CIRP initiated by the NCLT.
Under Section 7 of the IBC, this amendment allowed the home buyer to initiate insolvency proceedings against defaulting Promoters. However, the Insolvency Amendment 2018 was challenged in the Supreme Court of India by approximately 200 realtors.
The new framework allows Creditors to continue recovery process with Personal Guarantor after completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
There has been no further clarification as to whether the home buyers are secured financial creditors or unsecured financial creditors, but in consideration of the recent developments, one thing is sure that the result will be in the interest of homebuyers only.
Home buyers are vital stakeholders in building projects. Many home buyers book their property in advance which helps builders raise funds for construction and development of the project.
Director liability during financial distress- An interplay of the IBC, 2016 and the Companies Act, 2013. It is undisputed that in times of solvency, director’s responsibilities are mainly directed towards shareholders, under the guidance of the Companies Act.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (for short “I&B Code”), enacted in 2016, marked a significant reform in India’s economic landscape by streamlining the insolvency resolution process and providing a balanced framework.
The Corporate Debtor would carry on construction and out of total saleable construction 32% will be of landowner and remaining 68% will be of the Corporate Debtor.
The withdrawal of an application for CIRP by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC.
Both operational creditors and financial creditors own certain advantages over each other. But Financial creditors are given some priorities over other creditors such as they are members of the creditor’s committee and have voting power etc and operational is not a member of the creditor’s committee.
The NCLAT had to decide whether the NCLT/CoC may provide resolution applicants repeated chances to alter their individual resolution plans and whether the CoC was authorised to entertain fresh or revised resolution plans without exhausting available bids.
This judgement is a step in the right direction because it recognizes the authority of a non-petitioning creditor to request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings. It assures that A creditor is not deprived of their right just because they didn’t participate in the initial winding up procedure against corporate debtor.
In the present case, the NCLAT held that the Appellants were acting as investors, the money they gave to the Respondents was in the nature of a loan, satisfying the condition of amount “disbursed against consideration for time value of money,” and the committed returns were in the nature of “interest.”
The Supreme Court did not agree to the payment of amounts deposited by the promoter to homebuyers on the grounds that it would be preferential payment to one class of creditors.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) is the preeminent dynamic body in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Choices with respect to the organization of the corporate borrower are taken at the gatherings of the Committee, in light of a dominant part vote of the individuals.
join For Updates