Raheja Developers Limited

The decree-holder does not change its original character of being a Real Estate Allottee and A single allottee cannot trigger the insolvency as does not meet the threshold requirement as per second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Code – Dheeraj Raikhy Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, NCLT relying on the judgment of NCLAT in Sushil Ansal vs. Ashok Tripathi & Ors. [2020] ibclaw.in 43 NCLAT held that the decree-holder does not change its original character of being a Real Estate Allottee and this being a case of a single allotment, does not meet the threshold requirement as per second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Code.

NCLAT referred the judgment in Vishal Chelani & Ors. Vs. Debashis Nanda (2023) ibclaw.in 117 SC and held that it is now well settled that the status of the party i.e. allottee does not change and therefore the Adjudicating Authority has rightly concluded that threshold being not met one allottee cannot trigger the insolvency.

The decree-holder does not change its original character of being a Real Estate Allottee and A single allottee cannot trigger the insolvency as does not meet the threshold requirement as per second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Code – Dheeraj Raikhy Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether dues to Land owners under collaboration agreements in nature of joint development of project with sharing of profit can be treated as Operational Debt within the provisions of the IBC? – Mrs. Jesleen Kaur Papneja Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench

The Adjudicating Authority dismissed CIRP application u/s 9 of IBC and held that (i) it is clear that the definition is comprehensive in nature and has to be understood within the four corners of this code. It means a ‘claim in respect of the provision of goods and services’. Latter part of the definition is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) Joint Development agreement are not within the ambit of Financial debt as defined in the code. (iii) There may be variety of real estate development contracts under different names which can be entered upon which may have a component in the nature of a loan. For example Collaboration Agreement, Joint Development Agreement, the purpose of which is the mutual binding legal relationship in exchange of consideration. These type of agreements cannot come under the purview of operational debt as understood under the Code. What has to be seen is the real intention between the parties. (iv) The agreements cannot be read in isolation alone rather are to be seen collectively as a whole. (v) The said contract is in nature of joint development of project with sharing of profit in an agreed ratio amongst them. rather than a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services.

Whether dues to Land owners under collaboration agreements in nature of joint development of project with sharing of profit can be treated as Operational Debt within the provisions of the IBC? – Mrs. Jesleen Kaur Papneja Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench Read Post »

If the delay in possession of real estate is not due to the Corporate Debtor but force majeure, it cannot be alleged that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in delivering the possession – Navin Raheja Vs. Shilpa Jain and Others – NCLAT New Delhi

Before admitting such case, it will be desirable to find out whether the allottees have come for refund of the money or to get their apartment/ flat/ premises by way of resolution. If the intention of the allottees only for refund of money and not possession of apartment/ flat/ premises, then the ‘Corporate Debtor’ may bring it to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
54. The Adjudicating Authority before admitting an application under Section 7 filed by allottee(s) will take into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors”.
If the delay is not due to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ but force majeure, as noticed above, it cannot be alleged that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ defaulted in delivering the possession.

If the delay in possession of real estate is not due to the Corporate Debtor but force majeure, it cannot be alleged that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in delivering the possession – Navin Raheja Vs. Shilpa Jain and Others – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Existence of the dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-existing (it must exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoice) u/s 8 – Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited Vs. Raheja Developers Limited – NCLAT

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

Existence of the dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-existing (it must exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoice) u/s 8 – Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited Vs. Raheja Developers Limited – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top