957

Is dispute arising out of a development agreement between a landowner and developer beyond the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Authority or Real Estate Appellate Tribunal  – Nesh India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar – Patna High Court

Hon’ble Patna High Court held that the registered Development Agreement explicitly is neither a joint venture agreement nor does it manifest a partnership of any sort between the parties thereto. There is no whisper of any revenue/profit sharing between the parties as well. The landowners were not involved in the day-to-day construction activities. Even otherwise, the Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2021 notified on 05.08.2021 which has been held to have retrospective operation for the reasons elaborated in the foregoing paragraphs, leaves no iota of doubt on the locus of landowners to institute and the RERA to adjudicate. The present dispute squarely falls within the jurisdiction of RERA, 2016 and thus amenable to the RERA.

Is dispute arising out of a development agreement between a landowner and developer beyond the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Authority or Real Estate Appellate Tribunal  – Nesh India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar – Patna High Court Read Post »

If Customer filed a suit against Bank and Employees/ex-employees for fraud and misappropriation committed in bank accounts, the suit is within the definition of Commercial dispute u/s 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and is perfectly maintainable before Commercial Court – Sivasubramaniam v. Shri Dhanalakshmi Spinntex Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Madras High Court

Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that:
(i) The employees of the 8th respondent / 1st Defendant bank had illegally handled the account of the plaintiffs, for which, the 1st defendant bank would be vicariously liable and hence the said transaction is a commercial dispute under 2(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the 1st point is answered against the petitioner.
(ii) A bare reading of the Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act 2015 would make it clear that the mandate under Section 12A of Act, with regard to the pre-institution mediation is applicable only to the suits, which do not contemplate any urgent interim orders, on the other hand, the suits, which contemplate urgent interim relief, pre-institutions mediation is not necessary.

If Customer filed a suit against Bank and Employees/ex-employees for fraud and misappropriation committed in bank accounts, the suit is within the definition of Commercial dispute u/s 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and is perfectly maintainable before Commercial Court – Sivasubramaniam v. Shri Dhanalakshmi Spinntex Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Madras High Court Read Post »

If a communication issued earlier to the Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC indicates dispute, it can be taken into account by the Adjudicating Authority – First WalkIn Technologies Vs. Coffee Day Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that in a Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Question on Merit of Dispute, cannot be gone into by an Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal). Of course, the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) is to examine before Admitting, or Rejecting an Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , 1) Whether the Dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor, qualifies as a Dispute, as defined under Section 5(6) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016; and 2) The Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) can examine whether Merits of Dispute, given by the Corporate Debtor, satisfy the Condition specified under Sub Section 2 (8) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

If a communication issued earlier to the Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC indicates dispute, it can be taken into account by the Adjudicating Authority – First WalkIn Technologies Vs. Coffee Day Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Login
Scroll to Top