Balancing IBC and RERA- For protection of homebuyers’ interests
Approaching RERA has been rightly helpful for the homebuyers who have not received the possession or refund of the amount paid by them to the builders or developers.
Approaching RERA has been rightly helpful for the homebuyers who have not received the possession or refund of the amount paid by them to the builders or developers.
The homebuyers who wish to seek refund of their amount are legally entitled to approach National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under IBC.
The homebuyers can file a petition against the builder or developer to commence Corporate Insolvency Process or not.
Homebuyers to file the claim under IBC rather than adopting a way which is not legally realistic wherein the insolvency orders are passed against the builder’s company.
RERA or IBC- Both the laws provides with the subjective approach depending upon the facts of the case and the situation of the developer.
IBC and RERA Act, enacted in 2016, appear to be pitted against each other as far as protecting the interests of bankers and home buyers are concerned.
Home buyers who had invested in housing projects by JIL, were permitted by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to submit their claims as ‘other creditors’, subordinate to financial and operational creditors of JIL.
The IBC (Amendment) Bill 2017 was passed by the Lok Sabha to form the base for covering loopholes in prevailing code and to increase the effectiveness of the resolution.
A big relief to homebuyers and promoters and now they can be an equal part of the CoC, as the President also has given his assent to the Ordinance effecting amendments in insolvency code.
The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.
Article 137 is having a wider scope than Article 1 of the Limitation Act and is not applicable to the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Article 1 is also not applicable to the petition filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Section 7 of the Code permits a financial creditor to initiate a CIRP procedure against the guarantor being a corporate debtor in accordance with the default committed by the principal borrower.
the interest of the allottees is protected and the survival of real estate companies and completion of projects is ensured. As the amendment in the IBC has brought much needed clarity and provided the much-needed right to the home buyers/allottee.
Since the real estate projects are the turkey projects and take multiple years to get it completed, a normal delay can be accepted. Any delay of more than 1 year from promised date of possession is regarded as ‘extra-ordinary delay’.
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.