110

Whether the statutory mandate of getting completion certificate be waived by the issuance of a mere letter by Panchayat? – P. Anandasundaresan Vs. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. – Madras High Court

When Section 2(h) (ii) of the TN RERA Act is read in consonance with Section 11 (4)(b) of the RERA Act, which states that it is the duty of the promoter to obtain the completion certificate or the occupancy certificate, or both, as applicable, from the relevant competent authority as per local laws or other laws for the time being in force and to make it available to the allottees individually or to the association of allottees, as the case may be. In the present case on hand, as obtaining completion certificate is not a discretionary but a mandatory one as per the provisions mandated under the TNRERA Act, the same cannot be waived by any other similar letter issued by the Panchayat under the guise of alleged completion.

Whether the statutory mandate of getting completion certificate be waived by the issuance of a mere letter by Panchayat? – P. Anandasundaresan Vs. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Curative Jurisdiction should not be used to open the floodgates and create a fourth or fifth stage (Review Jurisdiction or Curative Jurisdiction) of Court intervention in an Arbitral Award – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court

I. Scope of interference of Courts with arbitral awards
II. Scope of interference of Supreme Court with Arbitral Awards
III. Invoking Curative Jurisdiction in an arbitral award

Curative Jurisdiction should not be used to open the floodgates and create a fourth or fifth stage (Review Jurisdiction or Curative Jurisdiction) of Court intervention in an Arbitral Award – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

NCLT disposes of IBC Section 7 petition filed by Homebuyer in Real Estate Insolvency resolving the issue through Advocate Commissioner – Girish Luthra and Ors. Vs. Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi

In this case, the Home Buyers are aggrieved by the Corporate Debtor’s conduct in not completing the project in time; and therefore creditors in a class filed Section 7 Petition. NCLT appointed an Advocate Commissioner vide order dated 23.05.2023. The Home Buyers giving their assent to Plan-A proposed by the Corporate Debtor, the details of the proposal was agreed by the Corporate Debtor.

Hon’ble NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi disposes of the petition holding that since the parties have come to certain terms for resolving the issue we deem it fit to record the same stating that it will be binding on the parties for implementation. We do so keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the similar proceedings in the case of Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja & Ors. reported in (2022) ibclaw.in 14 SC as well as in the matter of Anand Murti vs. Soni Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2022) ibclaw.in 27 SC.

NCLT disposes of IBC Section 7 petition filed by Homebuyer in Real Estate Insolvency resolving the issue through Advocate Commissioner – Girish Luthra and Ors. Vs. Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi Read Post »

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite corporatation Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court – Madras High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite corporatation Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court – Madras High Court Read Post »

The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the Court – Union Bank of India Vs. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) When a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.
(ii) As per the sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the balance amount of purchase price payable has to be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of the confirmation of sale or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not extending three months.
(iii) The court in exercise of powers under Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing with the subject. The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes. These powers though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court.

The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the Court – Union Bank of India Vs. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

An application under Section 9 of the Code is only maintainable when the contention of the defendant is rejected in its entirety in the civil matter and goes past the appellate stage – M/s Damani Shipping Ltd. Vs. M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench

The Applicant filed the civil suit for recovery of alleged unpaid invoices before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court despite having an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Work Order. Supplementary, upon the direction of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it continued the recovery proceedings before the civil and commercial courts in Udaipur. This act of Applicant cannot be considered as bonafide and being pursued as diligently as none of the adjudicating forums that were approached by the Applicant has granted any liberty in excluding the period of limitation for pursuing the suit in good faith. An application under Section 9 of the Code is only maintainable when the contention of the defendant is rejected in its entirety in the civil matter and goes past the appellate stage; it can be presumed that there is no cause of dispute between the parties.

An application under Section 9 of the Code is only maintainable when the contention of the defendant is rejected in its entirety in the civil matter and goes past the appellate stage – M/s Damani Shipping Ltd. Vs. M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top