415

Whether Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has jurisdiction to issue an order of recovery warrant under Section 40 of RERA, 2016 – Marg Properties Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulating Authority (TNRERA) and Ors. – Madras High Court

Hon’ble Madras High Court held that:

(i) Once the regulatory authority passed an order under Section 40(1) of RERA, 2016, the order impugned would reveal that the recovery warrant was issued under Section 40(1) of the RERA and it was sent to the District Collector to recover the money. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has not exceeded its limits beyond the scope of the powers conferred under Section 40(1) of the RERA.
(ii) The regulatory authority treated the recovery of amount and issued a warrant under Section 40(1) of the RERA to the District Collector for the purpose of recovering the same by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and that being the scope of the order, this Court do not find any infirmity.

Whether Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has jurisdiction to issue an order of recovery warrant under Section 40 of RERA, 2016 – Marg Properties Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulating Authority (TNRERA) and Ors. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Payment of refunds to Passengers of Go Airlines whose Airline Tickets have been cancelled, NCLT issues notice to IBBI – Go Airlines (India) Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-V

I. Case Reference Case Citation : (2023) ibclaw.in 415 NCLT Case Name : Go Airlines (India) Ltd. Corporate Debtor

Payment of refunds to Passengers of Go Airlines whose Airline Tickets have been cancelled, NCLT issues notice to IBBI – Go Airlines (India) Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-V Read Post »

Proprietorship Firm represented by its Sole Proprietor by reflecting the name of sole proprietor itself would show that the Application is being represented by the Proprietorship Firm as well as the Proprietor, duly represented by its Sole Proprietor – Fipola Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M2N Interiors – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT observed that from the perusal of the Application it is seen that the Proprietorship name i.e., M/s. M2N Interiors is represented by its Sole Proprietor as depicted in cause title, therefore, taking into consideration that the Proprietorship Firm represented by its Sole Proprietor by reflecting the name of sole proprietor itself would show that the Application is being represented by the Proprietorship Firm as well as the Proprietor, duly represented by its Sole Proprietor. In this regard, as decided by this Tribunal Section 2 of Code 2016 applies to Partnership Firms and Proprietorship Firms. As per Sub Clause (f) of Section 2, the person defines in Sub Section 23 of Section 3 includes a Partnership Firm. Therefore, relying upon the decision of this Tribunal there is no error apparent in the Impugned Order.  Taking into consideration of the aspects and relying upon the decision NCLAT in Neeta Saha vs. Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta [2020] ibclaw.in 272 NCLAT is of the view that the Application filed by the Respondent i.e., M/s. M2N Interiors, a Proprietorship Firm is maintainable and accordingly this Tribunal does not find any illegality in the Common Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 01.02.2021.

Proprietorship Firm represented by its Sole Proprietor by reflecting the name of sole proprietor itself would show that the Application is being represented by the Proprietorship Firm as well as the Proprietor, duly represented by its Sole Proprietor – Fipola Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M2N Interiors – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top