693

The use of the word “in”, in the expression “in part performance of the contract” under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 merely connotes a nexus between the taking of possession of the property by the transferee and the contract which envisages transfer of the property – Sharad Bhansali and Anr. Vs. Mukesh Aggarwal and Anr. – Delhi High Court

/ 35 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the taking of possession of the property is only to be “in part performance of the contract”. Section 53A does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, require the taking of possession to be simultaneous with the execution of the Agreement to Sell, or even immediately pursuant thereto. The use of the word “in”, in the expression “in part performance of the contract” merely connotes a nexus between the taking of possession of the property by the transferee and the contract which envisages transfer of the property. If, therefore, the transferee, in the case of an Agreement to Sell, acquires possession of the property forming subject matter of the Agreement to Sell, consequent upon its execution, Section 53A would ipso facto apply, even if the acquisition of possession is not simultaneous with, or immediately following, the execution of the Agreement to Sell.

The use of the word “in”, in the expression “in part performance of the contract” under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 merely connotes a nexus between the taking of possession of the property by the transferee and the contract which envisages transfer of the property – Sharad Bhansali and Anr. Vs. Mukesh Aggarwal and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Workmen/Employees/Operational Creditors may file an application u/s 9 of IBC to initiate CIRP in an individual capacity or as a joint capacity by the authorized person, however, for a valid application u/s 9 of the Code, threshold limit for each individual is required to be one crore – Mr. Atanu Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 5 minutes of reading

In this case, the application u/s 9 of IBC has been filed by 29 Operational Creditors who are the former employees of the Corporate debtor.

NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:
(i) It is a settled law that workmen/employees (Operational Creditors) may file an application to initiate CIRP in an individual capacity or as a joint capacity by the authorized person. Therefore, the application to initiate CIRP under Section 9 of the Code can be initiated by the Operational Creditors individually or jointly.
(ii) There is no ambiguity about application u/s 7 of IBC being filed individually or jointly with other Financial Creditors and threshold limit would apply accordingly. However, the provision of Section 9 is differently worded.
(iii) Phrase in Section 7 is “itself or jointly”, whereas the word jointly or any synonym of it is not finding place in Section 9 of the Code.
(iv) For a valid Petitioner u/s 9 of the Code, threshold limit for each individual is required to be one crore.
(v) The current Company Petition is not maintainable as the claim of each Operational Creditor is below the threshold limit of One Crore.

Workmen/Employees/Operational Creditors may file an application u/s 9 of IBC to initiate CIRP in an individual capacity or as a joint capacity by the authorized person, however, for a valid application u/s 9 of the Code, threshold limit for each individual is required to be one crore – Mr. Atanu Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Some possible issues arise for consideration in the aftermath of ‘N.N. Global’ judgement – Splendor Landbase Ltd. Vs. Aparna Ashram Society & Anr. – Delhi High Court

/ 43 minutes of reading

In this case, some possible issues that arise for consideration in the aftermath of the ‘N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 56 SC’ judgement were identified and set out:
(i) Unstamped/Insufficiently Stamped Arbitration Agreement is Mandatorily required to be impounded in proceedings under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(ii) Whether mandatory to file the Original Agreement with the petition under Section 11
(iii) Procedure to be followed after impounding
(iv) Whether time bound directions can be given to the Concerned Collector of Stamps
(v) Instruments executed in one State but sought to be relied/ acted upon in another State.

Some possible issues arise for consideration in the aftermath of ‘N.N. Global’ judgement – Splendor Landbase Ltd. Vs. Aparna Ashram Society & Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top