176

Common areas and amenities of the project cannot be controlled by the builders – Sangita and Ors. Vs. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan (RERA) through its Registrar and Anr. – Rajasthan REAT

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

Common areas and amenities of the project cannot be controlled by the builders – Sangita and Ors. Vs. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan (RERA) through its Registrar and Anr. – Rajasthan REAT Read Post »

Outer limit “before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36” provided by Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not become applicable on mere filing of the application seeking enforcement – Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
(i) Since Section 36 of the Arbitration Act is not applicable to foreign awards the outer limit provided by Section 9 of the Arbitration Act of “before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36” would not be applicable.
(ii) Even if one were to assume that the outer limit prescribed by Section 9 of the Arbitration Act were to apply even to proceedings seeking enforcement of foreign awards, the outer limit cannot be read as “before filing an application seeking enforcement”. The expression used is “before it is enforced”. This would clearly imply till the award is fully satisfied. The word “enforced” is past tense of the word “enforce” which would imply that the enforcement has already happened and is complete.

Outer limit “before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36” provided by Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not become applicable on mere filing of the application seeking enforcement – Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Right to visit Project Site to Homebuyers/Allottees during Corporate Insolvency of a Real Estate Project – Mr. Satish Kumar and 47 Ors. Vs. Mr. Vikram Bajaj RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench

In this case, IAs filed by Homebuyers to allow access to units purchased, to commence commercial activity from their units, to obtain electrical connections and carry out necessary alterations in the units etc.

Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi Bench holds that:
(i) After initiation of the CIRP, it is the duty of the Resolution Professional to protect, preserve and maintain the status quo of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor in toto.
(ii) The Conduct of Resolution Professional to not allow free Ingress and Egress to the Applicants/Homebuyers is not good in law.
(iii) Directs the Resolution Professional to restore the right to visit the Project Site to the Applicants/Homebuyers.
(iv) Once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC, the Adjudicating Authority can’t go back to look into the nittygritty’s involved in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

Right to visit Project Site to Homebuyers/Allottees during Corporate Insolvency of a Real Estate Project – Mr. Satish Kumar and 47 Ors. Vs. Mr. Vikram Bajaj RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top