689

Till the reference is answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the law laid down in the matter of India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr. has to be followed – SMFG India Credit Co. Ltd. Vs. (CA) Kshitiz Gupta, RP Aditya Vidyut Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Till the reference is answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the law laid down in the matter of India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr. has to be followed – SMFG India Credit Co. Ltd. Vs. (CA) Kshitiz Gupta, RP Aditya Vidyut Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Planning Authority and the Regulatory Authority have to work in tandem and they have to compliment each other – Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that after RERA Act was brought into force, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority has been entrusted with powers to deal with projects from the stage where the actual implementation and formation of the project commences. The Planning Authority, no doubt, reigns supreme in the matter of granting approvals for establishment of the projects. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the Planning Authority and the Regulatory Authority have to work in tandem and they have to compliment each other.

Even if the Authority had directed impleadment of the Urban Development Department of the State Government or the Competent Authority–Planning Authority, it could thereafter direct the Competent Authority to carry out the remaining developments works.

Planning Authority and the Regulatory Authority have to work in tandem and they have to compliment each other – Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

A hair-cut in Resolution Plan cannot be construed as being violative of Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC, the minority Homebuyers have to necessarily sail with the majority within the class – Mr. Ankur Narang & Ors. Vs. Mr. Nilesh Sharma RP of Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

The issue in this case is whether objections raised by a wafer-thin, miniscule minority amongst the homebuyers against the collective business decision taken by the Home Buyers can survive and be amenable to judicial intervention.

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) The democratic principles of a determinative role of majority opinion have been enshrined in the statutory construct of the IBC and hence the minority homebuyers have to necessarily sail with the majority within the class.

(ii) When the majority has approved the resolution plan, the objections raised by the homebuyers in minority are inconsequential.

(iii) Once the CoC has approved the resolution plan by requisite majority and the same is in consonance with applicable provisions of law the same cannot be a subject matter of judicial review and modification.

(iv) Merely because there is a reduction in the claim of any creditor does not make the resolution plan fall foul of law.

(v) Any clause in the resolution plan which requires creditors to take a hair-cut cannot be construed as being violative of Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC.

(vi) NCLAT quite agrees with the NCLT that “resolution plan providing a lesser amount than admitted does not make it illegal” and upheld the decision of the NCLT.

A hair-cut in Resolution Plan cannot be construed as being violative of Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC, the minority Homebuyers have to necessarily sail with the majority within the class – Mr. Ankur Narang & Ors. Vs. Mr. Nilesh Sharma RP of Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Tribunal is a judicial authority, and has the power to refer the matter to Arbitration if it finds that the dispute is arbitral and falls within the scope of Arbitration Agreement – Nityanand Sharma – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:

(i) It is not in dispute that this Tribunal is a judicial authority, and has the power to refer the matter to Arbitration if it finds that the dispute is arbitral and falls within the scope of Arbitration Agreement
(ii) The issues of taxation in the hands of each subscriber is a personal matter, and can not be said to be an act of Oppression qua other members, as other members will also have similar taxation issues
(iii) An Arbitrator can not direct Respondent No. 4 and its shareholders, other than signatories to SHA, who are not party to it, to have shares allotted to the Petitioners in terms of SHA. Further, this Tribunal can also not direct Respondent No. 4 and its shareholders, who are not party to SHA, even if comes to the conclusion that the present petition is not a dressed up petition and has to be dealt with in accordance with Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013.
(iv) This Bench feels that this is an issue arising purely from the SHA, and between two parties i.e. Petitioner and Applicant, which can be referred to the Arbitrator by either of parties, not by this Tribunal, to decide (a) whether the Petitioner’s claim for equitable treatment, in the fact and circumstances of the case, is tenable; and (b) whether the Petitioner’s claim for allotment of shares, against delayed remittance, at initial offered price is also tenable in terms of SHA, if yes, whether Applicant may be made liable to compensate to the Petitioner for the monetary loss resulting from the approach of the Applicant.

Tribunal is a judicial authority, and has the power to refer the matter to Arbitration if it finds that the dispute is arbitral and falls within the scope of Arbitration Agreement – Nityanand Sharma – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Whether an investment made by the Director of the Company falls under the definition of Operational Debt? – Akshat Pandey Vs. Avighna Films Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held in this instant matter the Petitioner, who is also one of the director of the Corporate Debtor, invested money in the Corporate Debtor for production of a movie. In light of the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that an Investment made by the director of the Company does not fall under the purview of an Operational Debt under the Code.

Whether an investment made by the Director of the Company falls under the definition of Operational Debt? – Akshat Pandey Vs. Avighna Films Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top