Not attached now

The statutory exception under Section 3(2)(a) will prevail only when none of the two parameters are breached, in that, neither the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds 500 square meters and the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight – Sumit Dey Vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam – Assam REAT

Hon’ble Assam REAT held that for establishment of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) exclusively for the regulation, promotion, effective consumer protection, transparency, uniformity and standardization of business practices and transactions in the real estate sector, the registration of a real estate project with the RERA becomes mandatory when any of the two parameters given in the said clause (a) of sub-section (2) is breached. In other words, where the area of the land proposed to be developed for a real estate project exceeds 500 square meters or alternatively the number of apartments/flats proposed to be developed exceeds eight, then in either case the registration of the project with RERA becomes an inescapable legal requirement.

The statutory exception under Section 3(2)(a) will prevail only when none of the two parameters are breached, in that, neither the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds 500 square meters and the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight – Sumit Dey Vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam – Assam REAT Read Post »

After the receipt of the principal sum, it would not be justifiable for the Operational Creditor to continue to prosecute the application u/s 9 of IBC, 2016 with the sole object of recovering the interest amount – Shubhrattan General Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gammon India Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench refers judgments in Krishna Enterprises vs. Gammon India (2023) ibclaw.in 91 NCLAT and Rohit Motawat vs. Madhu Sharma Proprietor Hind Chemical Corporation and another 2023 ibclaw.in 128 NCLAT and holds that after the receipt of the principal sum, it would not be justifiable for the Operational Creditor to continue to prosecute the Application u/s 9 of the Code, 2016 with the sole object of recovering the interest amount as the object of the IB Code is resolution and not recovery.

After the receipt of the principal sum, it would not be justifiable for the Operational Creditor to continue to prosecute the application u/s 9 of IBC, 2016 with the sole object of recovering the interest amount – Shubhrattan General Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gammon India Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

For finding out threshold limit under Section 4 of IBC both amount Principal and Interest has to be computed – Netafirm Agricultural Financing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baliraja Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the Adjudicating Authority has rejected an application filed under Section 7 of IBC on the ground that it does not fulfil the threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore.
NCLAT set aside impugned order holding that the amount of Principal and Interest added is Rs.1.33 Crore i.e. beyond the minimum threshold required. The Deed of Guarantee mentions about the interest on default. For finding out threshold both amount Principal and Interest has to be computed.

For finding out threshold limit under Section 4 of IBC both amount Principal and Interest has to be computed – Netafirm Agricultural Financing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baliraja Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If during extended within 45 days as per Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, a party in a position to satisfy the court regarding the reasonable ground for delay, NCLAT may entertain petition – Gursharan Singh Sawhney Vs. Harkiran Kaur Sawhney & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that under provision contained in Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 an appeal is to be filed within 45 days, however if further after expiry of 45 days appeal is not filed, then thereafter this tribunal is not competent to entertain the appeal. However, if during extended within 45 days, a party in a position to satisfy the court regarding the reasonable ground for delay, this court may entertain such petition. Considering the statement made in the condonation petition, we are not satisfied that any plausible explanation has been given for delay in filing the appeal. Normally, in condonation of delay application, it is required on the part of the party to explain day to day delay, however, in the present application no such explanation has been given and as such we don’t find any ground to condone the delay. The appeal stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself.

If during extended within 45 days as per Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, a party in a position to satisfy the court regarding the reasonable ground for delay, NCLAT may entertain petition – Gursharan Singh Sawhney Vs. Harkiran Kaur Sawhney & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 9 Application are application which has to be decided in timely manner and exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority can not be faulted – Baba Baidnath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Textile Solutions – NCLAT New Delhi

Section 9 Application was filed by the Operational Creditor where he has relied on some documents dated 11.02.2020 and 16.03.2021. Application was filed for inspection and discovery asking for certain documents to be produced which was objected. The Adjudicating Authority has observed that if any documents are not filed the consequences will be faced by the Corporate Debtor, with these observations the Application was not entertained. NCLAT held that what is worth of the document has to be considered at the time of considering Section 9 Application and it is for the Operational Creditor to file relevant documents in support of his case and the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Application filed by the Appellant for discovery and inspection. Section 9 Application are application which has to be decided in timely manner and exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be faulted.

Section 9 Application are application which has to be decided in timely manner and exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority can not be faulted – Baba Baidnath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Textile Solutions – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top