206

Demand letters issued by Promoter for payment of balance amount without executing an agreement for sale are in violation of Section 13 of RERA and unlawful – S.M. Infrastructures Vs. Feroza Noor Mohammed Shaikh and Anr. – Maharashtra REAT

Hon’ble Maharashtra REAT held that:

(i) Despite not executing and registering the agreement for sale, the Promoter kept on sending to the Allottee demand notices for payment as per the payment schedule in the allotment letter. Such demand letters without executing and registering the agreement for sale are also in violation of Section 13 of RERA and therefore are unlawful.
(ii) In the absence of formal agreement executed by the parties, the date of possession can be deciphered from any documents such as allotment letter, brochure, pamphlet, email communications, letter of intent, etc. A perusal of the allotment letter would show that there is no mention of date of possession.

Demand letters issued by Promoter for payment of balance amount without executing an agreement for sale are in violation of Section 13 of RERA and unlawful – S.M. Infrastructures Vs. Feroza Noor Mohammed Shaikh and Anr. – Maharashtra REAT Read Post »

The timelines as stipulated in the IBC need to be considered as of Directory nature and not as Mandatory in nature – Vikram Laxman Pawar Vs. Mr. Sripatham Venkatasubramaniam Ramkumar, RP of Privilege Industries Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that it may also be worth considering that although the timeline as stipulated in the Code are sacrosanct and important and sometime critical for resolution of the Corporate Debtor in order to achieve the maximization of value of all the stakeholders, the timelines need to be considered as of directory nature and not as mandatory in nature.

The timelines as stipulated in the IBC need to be considered as of Directory nature and not as Mandatory in nature – Vikram Laxman Pawar Vs. Mr. Sripatham Venkatasubramaniam Ramkumar, RP of Privilege Industries Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether funds infused as share capital or otherwise given as loan can be treated as Operational Debt for the purposes of pursuing an application under Section 9 of the Code – Gopakumar Puthan Kattoor Vs. Oil Tools International Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

In this case, a CIRP application has been filed by invoking the provisions of Section 9 the Code. The Adjudicating Authority held that looking at the case from any angle i.e. either the money was given for allotment of shares or as loan, it would not be covered under the definition of operational debt in terms of Section 5(21). Therefore, in our considered view, no case is made out to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Code as the Petitioner has failed to prove that the nature of the debt claimed as an operational debt which is defined in terms of Section 5(21) of the Code as a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under the law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, State Government or any local Authority.

Whether funds infused as share capital or otherwise given as loan can be treated as Operational Debt for the purposes of pursuing an application under Section 9 of the Code – Gopakumar Puthan Kattoor Vs. Oil Tools International Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top