694

Development Rights are fully covered by the definition of Property under Section 3(27) of the IBC – Nilesh Sharma RP – Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mordhwaj Singh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the definition under Section 3(27) of the Property is an inclusive definition which obviously includes the Development Rights which was obtained by the Developers from the Owners by Development Agreement dated 03.03.2007 were subsequently assigned to the Corporate Debtor by an Agreement dated 30.07.2010. The Developer was handed over the possession in pursuance of Consent Award dated 05.09 2009.

Development Rights are fully covered by the definition of Property under Section 3(27) of the IBC – Nilesh Sharma RP – Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mordhwaj Singh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

It is not necessary that a transaction should involve written financial contract for initiation of Insolvency under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 | Loan given contrary to the limit prescribed under Section 186 of Companies Act, 2013 is an ultra vires act and is not a legally enforceable debt | For taking action under Section 65 of the Code, it is necessary that documentary evidence is brought on record – Proplarity Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sky High Technobuild Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Principal Bench held that:

(i) CIRP Regulation 8, it is clear that the FC can rely upon any relevant document including financial contract to prove the existence of debt. The regulation does not contemplate existence of all documents rather it uses the word “or” which indicates that by any relevant document the existence of debt can be proved.
(ii) In effect, transaction involving payment of interest along with principal is one type of financial debt and that if the transaction does not involve ‘payment of interest’ the said transaction would not be outside the purview of section 5(8) of the Code.
(iii) Mere recording of transaction in the balance sheet of the CD as “Inter-Corporate Deposit” would not constitute it as Financial Debt unless proved by supporting document
(iv) Even if we assume that the said transaction was in the nature of loan, material available on the record suggest that the amount given by the Petitioner is contrary to the limit prescribed under Companies Act, 2013 which amounts to an ultra vires act and is not a legally enforceable debt.
(v) For taking action under Section 65 of the Code for malicious prosecution against the FC, as prayed by the CD, it is necessary that documentary evidence is brought on record of this Tribunal which leads it to form a prima facie opinion that the proceedings have been initiated with such intention.

It is not necessary that a transaction should involve written financial contract for initiation of Insolvency under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 | Loan given contrary to the limit prescribed under Section 186 of Companies Act, 2013 is an ultra vires act and is not a legally enforceable debt | For taking action under Section 65 of the Code, it is necessary that documentary evidence is brought on record – Proplarity Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sky High Technobuild Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench Read Post »

Can a third-party non-signatory to an arbitration agreement be included in the arbitral proceedings? – RBCL Piletech Infra Vs. Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. (BJCL) and Ors. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that one of the common circumstances in which a non-signatory can be included in an arbitral proceeding is where the said non-signatory and one of the signatories to the arbitration agreement are part of one “group of companies” – often known as the “Group of Companies” doctrine. It is not, however, where the non-signatory is part of the same group of companies to which the signatory belongs, that alone the non signatory can be co-opted in the arbitral proceedings. One of the circumstances which would justify the inclusion of a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement in arbitral proceedings is a contractual relationship which makes a non-signatory also responsible to one extent or the other to the obligations towards the claimants.

Can a third-party non-signatory to an arbitration agreement be included in the arbitral proceedings? – RBCL Piletech Infra Vs. Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. (BJCL) and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top