In Banking Industry, the Borrower is not in a position to negotiate the Terms of the Loan Agreement, especially in cases of Home Loans, hence there is inequality of Bargaining power among Home Buyers.
Category: Business Advisory
Breach of the settlement agreement is not a ground to invoke CIRP
Hon’ble NCLT Delhi held that the breach of the Settlement Agreement by the parties does not fall within the ambit of Operational Debt provided under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Why are Homebuyers choosing NCLT over RERA?
Buyers say that RERA orders are not getting implemented and this is forcing them to approach NCLT and there is a need to check abuse and maximize the value of assets.
Apex Court redefines the ambit of the definition of a consumer with reference to commercial transactions
It was held that the Consumer Complaint of the appellant is not maintainable as the appellant is not a consumer as per section 2(1) d of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Whether the license fee can be claimed as Operational Debt
In the present case, debt pertaining to unpaid license fee was fully covered within the meaning of ‘operation debt’ under Section 5(21), and the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in holding that the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor is not an ‘operational debt’
Resolution Plan has to be completed within the stipulated period
As per proviso to Section 12 of the IBC, the insolvency resolution process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extension of the period of CIRP granted under Section 12 of the IBC.
SC imposes a penalty of ₹5 Lakhs on the petitioner seeking an alternative to Supertech Twin Towers Demolition
SC Imposes penalty of Rs.5 lakhs and directed the same to be deposited within 4 days to the SC registry. The amount will be transferred to Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to be used for the welfare of families affected by Covid.
Is the Principle of Natural Justice applicable to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016?
The actions of the CoC by not accepting the Applicant’s Resolution Plan were void in nature and held that the Applicant must be given a fresh opportunity to participate in the process of submission of the Resolution Plan.
Land Allotment Cancellation over Non-Payment of Dues, Red Alert for the Developers
the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority had cancelled the allotment of ‘Panorama’ in Sector 22A over non-payment of dues of Rs 46.8 crore.
Consumer court have the power to direct refund and compensation in case of delayed delivery of the apartment
The Consumer Protection Act is a wide-ranging provision and it is not a specific resolution like the Insolvency ad Bankruptcy Code and the remedies are simultaneously and mutually exclusive.
Trademark Registration and Protection against its Infringement
The trademark is Intellectual property and every property must be registered in the name of its owner, and here the brand name is Intellectual property of the owner which comes from the intellect of the owner.
Limitation is continuous in cases of Homebuyers
If a homebuyer failed to file his/her case then will his/her case will not be taken and his grievances won’t be solved? The answer to this question is “NO”! The reason here is that the limitation period in the case of a homebuyer is continuous in view of the non-handing over of the possession of the unit.
Pre-Deposit is Mandatory for Filing Appeal U/Sec 43(5) RERA
The Appellate Tribunal recorded its dissatisfaction to the effect that the appellant has not complied with provisions of Section 43(5) of the Act, 2016 and has not deposited the balance amount.
Mechanism to protect Micro and Small Enterprises from delayed payment
Recover the money against the supply made along with interest notified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) if any company make the payment after 45 day of acceptance of goods and service from any MSME’s vendor.
Do NCLT is vested with the power to classify a transaction as a “preferential transaction”!
The Hon’ble NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi held that the IBC does not vest the power to NCLT to Suo-moto classify a transaction as Preferential Transaction under Section 44 r/w Section 45 of IBC.