Claims that do not form part of the resolution plan will be extinguished on the date of the adjudicating authority’s acceptance of the resolution plan. This ruling has reaffirmed the IBC’s goal, which is for the Corporate Debtor to start over with a clean slate based on 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.
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 NCLAT, in its Order dated 23.04.2019, ruled that GMSPL’s (Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd.) Resolution Plan is better compared to the other Applicants. However, NCLAT noted that the parties’ claims that are not covered in the Resolution Plan may be raised before the relevant forums.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of NCLT, or is not satisfied with the decision or if there is any mistake or error on part of NCLT then such a person can appeal NCLAT u/s 61 of IBC for its corrections and proper disposal of judgement/order.
This isn’t the first time the NCLAT has ruled that, IBC rules take precedence over other laws, such as the attachment of corporate debtor’s assets under the PMLA.
No further legal action shall be permissible by creditor, whose claim has been rendered unsatisfied as per the resolution plan.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the applicant can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in respect of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
Hon’ble SC clarified the position of the homebuyers similar to that of a “financial creditor” under the IBC, after this the homebuyers were at a par with banks and financial institutions.
The IBC is favoured over the SARFAESI Act, primarily because it offers a quick solution and is also effective in reviving the company and safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders.
The NCLT and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) have to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and for when the dispute is one which does not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.
Homebuyers who had taken a loan from the banks to pay for their flats in the Project, were being harassed by the banks who were forcing the homebuyers to pay their EMIs.
Homebuyers while filing the joint petition before NCLT under IBC laws, should chose the legal firm very carefully.
NBCC took over the project in July on the SC orders after a petition by homebuyers following the Amrapali Group’s failure to deliver more than 30,000 flats in 15 projects. According to NBCC they will hand over at least 150-200 flats every month from august.
In response to the damage done to the economy the Indian Government has placed certain embargoes and granted certain grace periods to help reduce the financial strain caused by the complete shutdown of the economy this includes the three month moratorium that has been given by the RBI regarding payments of EMI.
join For Updates