The constitution of COC for one project instead of all is against the regular practice of CIRP. In the past two years, the NCLAT has passed similar orders in various cases and called them Reverse CIRP.
The recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Safire Technologies (Supra) simply expands this explanation to Section 61 of the IBC and discards the contentions that the time period for the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge of the order.
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.
Mobilization Advance is an Operational Debt and not a Financial Debt referring to the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement.
VIPL sought for a stay on the proceedings before the NCLT on the pretext of pendency of proceeding before the Supreme Court and resultantly, VIPL was unable to realize a substantial sum of Rs. 1730 crores which would enable the Appellant to clear the debt towards Axis Bank.
Proceeding against the Corporate Debtor for the recovery of the dues and hence can file a petition against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority.
Claim of the rental lease will be treated as operational debt under Section 5(21) of the code as per the decision given by the Hon’ble NCLAT.
Home buyers who have an order/decree/award for refund passed either by RERA or any consumer court or any court of law, can approach the NCLT under Section 7 of the Code for its default/non-payment, giving a new cause of action for the limitation period from the date the default occurred.
Individuals and corporates have begun to opt for ‘Arbitration’ as the chosen mode for resolution of their disputes to avoid court delays and other legal hassles of court.
The allottees long waiting for justice will now be able to secure the relief with the speedy process of hearing by single member benches.
The Adjudicating Authority cannot allow or approve the application regarding modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved Resolution Plans once the plan has been submitted before NCLT.
Different forums provide for different reliefs and one must be cautious enough before choosing an appropriate forum. Before choosing the appropriate forum, points to be analyzed are type of violation by the builder, what relief is prayed for, urgency, repetitive nature, financial condition of the builder, status of other projects, etc.
Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra Seamless Limited shows that the commercial wisdom of the CoC will be given top priority when deciding on the feasibility and viability of the resolution plan.
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application and held that it is a case of collusive Application whereby the Corporate Debtor is trying to seek benefits of Moratorium u/s 14 of the IBC and other advantages in accordance with other provisions of IBC 2016.
Calcutta High Courts held that moratorium under Section 14 of IBC also includes criminal proceedings for cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thus parallel proceedings against a corporate debtor cannot be allowed.
join For Updates