Decoding the Code
Track Recent Trend of Judiciary on IBC
Recent important judgments on “Real Estate Insolvency”
[2023]
Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Taneja & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 05 NCLAT: Section 65 of IBC has to be read as enabling provision to reject an application even on proving of debt and default Section 10 Application is not to be obligatorily admitted.
Gaurav Katiyar RP Vs. Nisus Finance and Investment Managers LLP (2023) ibclaw.in 96 NCLAT: Once the Resolution Plan is approved by CoC, Financial Creditors are estopped from seeking any Amendments/Modifications in the Information Memorandum.
Vishal Chelani & Ors. Vs. Debashis Nanda RP Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 551 NCLAT: Once the Recovery Certificate has been issued, the party in possession of the Recovery Certificate is to be considered as a Financial Creditor.
Parveen Gakhar Vs. Adani Goodhomes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 163 NCLAT: Case of part payment by a homebuyer for allotment of a flat and subsequently CIRP (Insolvency) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor/Real Estate Company.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Pasricha Vs. Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta Interim RP (2023) ibclaw.in 581 NCLAT: Only Winter Hills-77 and not to other projects of the Corporate Debtor and consequently and logically the moratorium in the present case can deemed to have been confined to only project- “Winter Hills-77” and not to other projects of Corporate Debtor.
Jagson Colorchem Ltd. Vs. Jayapushpam Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 113 NCLT: Parties under an agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on any Court or Tribunal which has no inherent jurisdiction to try any particular case.
Mr. Rohit Prasad Vs. M/s S and N Lifestyle Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 130 NCLT: The status of Financial Creditor cannot be accorded to a person who, in the garb of a lender comes in a Real Estate Project as a Speculative Investor and for mere recovery of monies files exorbitant claims.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. RP of Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 231 NCLAT: The liquidation value fixed by the Valuers cannot be ignored in the resolution process. It is true that CoC on any valid reason can take a call to ask for any fresh valuation due to any relevant circumstances, but the valuation done by the Registered Valuers and average of liquidation value taken up by the Valuers serves the specific purpose and cannot be allowed to be disregarded by the CoC. In event, it is accepted that the CoC can change the liquidation value on its own, that may lead to unsatisfactory results. Liquidation value found by the Registered Valuers cannot be allowed to be changed by the CoC.
Ashok Manchanda Vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 145 NCLT: Financial Creditors cannot be impleaded as a party in the application under Section 9 of the IBC, filed by Operation Creditors.
Mr. Toral Rathod Vs. Mr. Gopalsamy Ganesh Babu (2023) ibclaw.in 365 NCLAT: Filing of a claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay.
Mr. Ashok Kriplani Vs. Ms. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari RP (2023) ibclaw.in 432 NCLAT: In Project Wise Insolvency, Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional cannot seek any unpaid Fees/Costs from the members of the Committee of Creditors of another project of the Corporate Debtor.
Jyotsna Kailash Veera Vs. Mr. Manish Motilal Jaju (2023) ibclaw.in 361 NCLT: The Adjudicating Authority held that in the light of what has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Vs. NBCC (India) Limited and others (2021) ibclaw.in 63 SC it becomes abundantly clear that Home Buyers can vote for or against the Plan only as a class and if there are some Home Buyers pitted against the Resolution Plan, who are otherwise in minority, absolutely no locus to oppose the Plan in the capacity of dissatisfied Home Buyers. It is also abundantly clear that such dissenting minority segment within the class of Home Buyers cannot arrogate themselves to be dissenting Financial Creditors.
Shreepati Build Infra Investment Ltd. Vs. Abhiyan Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 400 NCLT: Initially entered into an agreement for purchase of flat and subsequently advance paid was converted into a loan, cannot change the basic nature of transaction and Financial Creditor will remain an allottee within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016 and is required to comply proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC to initiate CIRP.
Mr. Natwar Agrawal (HUF) Vs. Ms. Ssakash Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 425 NCLT: An allottee in Real Estate Project, who subsequently becomes a Decree Holder under RERA Act, 2016 continues to be a Financial Creditor in the class of Home Buyers and shall continue to be governed by the threshold limit prescribed under Second Proviso to Section 7(1) of the Code.
Mr. Arun Kumar Vs. Ms. Sripriya Kumar (2023) ibclaw.in 503 NCLAT: Moratorium u/s 14 of IBC does not impose any restriction on charging of any interest/Penal Interest during the CIRP period and it is not in the domain of the IBC, 2016 to decide any contractual interest liability.
Palapala Ankamma Rao Vs. Punjab National Bank (2023) ibclaw.in 450 NCLT: Resolution Professional is not bound to execute Registered Sale Deeds in favour of Applicants who had entered into an ‘agreement of sale’ with the Corporate Debtor prior to CIRP admission.
South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Magic Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 477 NCLT: Bank cannot initiate CIRP against Builder on default by Home Buyer being a Borrower.
G. S. Constructions Vs. Mr. Gajesh Labhchand Jain (2023) ibclaw.in 481 NCLT: Once the majority of CoC decide on one of Resolution Plan, the decision of the CoC attains finality, Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has no locus to challenge the commercial decision of the CoC.
Mrs. Taruna Suhas Saraph Vs. Mr. Dyaneshwar Chaudhari (2023) ibclaw.in 480 NCLT: There is no concept of dissenting homebuyers within Creditors in class.
Gajraj Jain & Ors. Vs. Shivgyan Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 618 NCLT: The threshold of Rs. 1 crore denotes the total default of the Corporate Debtor to any Financial Creditor and not necessarily only to the Applicant Allottees | For calculating the total number of allottees, only the number of allotted units in a project shall be considered, irrespective of the number of units constructed | In cases of joint allotments, wherein a single unit is allotted to more than one person, the joint allottees of that unit shall be considered to mean a single allottee.
Vishal Chelani & Ors. Vs. Debashis Nanda (2023) ibclaw.in 117 SC: In Resolution Plan of Real Estate Company, No distinction can be made between Home Buyers who had approached RERA and obtained decree for refund and Other Homebuyers, both are remained the same as Homebuyers within a class.
Dheeraj Raikhy Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 680 NCLAT: 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.
Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs. Supertech ORB Project Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 728 NCLT: CIRP can be initiated against Principal Borrower even during ongoing CIRP of Corporate Guarantor where Section 7 application filed by different financial creditors for different projects and filing of claim in the ongoing CIRP against Corporate Guarantor does not preclude the Financial Creditor from filing a CIRP application u/s 7 of IBC against Principal Borrower.
Mr. Ankur Narang & Ors. Vs. Mr. Nilesh Sharma RP & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 689 NCLAT: A hair-cut in Resolution Plan cannot be construed as being violative of Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC, the minority Homebuyers have to necessarily sail with the majority within the class.
Fervent Synergies Ltd. Vs. Manish Jaju RP and Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 774 NCLAT: Acceptance or admission of the claim of a Financial Creditor including homebuyers is one aspect of the scheme under the IBC. Subsequent steps in the IBC including the preparation of Resolution Plan are based on the list of creditors, admitted claims of the creditors etc. as per the scheme of the IBC, but the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed against the Resolution Applicant, who submits Resolution Plan on the basis of relying on the Information Memorandum, the list of creditors and other aspect of the matter. The Resolution Applicant has not extended any promise to the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor that the claim submitted by Financial Creditor or any other creditor shall be accepted in toto. The mandatory contents of the Resolution Plan are laid down in the CIRP Regulations, 2016. If a Resolution Plan is compliant with the provision of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the IBC and the provisions of the Regulations, 2016, the Plan cannot be faulted on the ground of the promissory estoppel, which the Appellant is pressing against the Resolution Professional, who has admitted the claim.
Sabari Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sivana Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 775 NCLAT: In a real estate project, CoC in its commercial wisdom can take appropriate decision to satisfy the claim of class of creditors in a reasonable and fair manner and different treatment of two sets of Homebuyers in view of the allotment to Homebuyer with/without NOC of the mortgagee is justified.
Disclaimer: Your use of any information or materials on this website is entirely at your own risk, for which we shall not be liable. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. The judgments uploaded or facilitated on the website are for the purposes of better understanding to the users. Any of those text of judgement may have some typographical errors, inaccuracies or omissions and may differ from the original text as issued by respective authority. We suggest you to refer the judgement hosted by Government authorised website to make any legal opinion or use in legal advice. We are not liable for any loss or damage caused to any person because of text posted by us on the website. We advise you to refer the same for understanding purposes only and use the original text of the judgement or rulings for drafting legal opinion. We are not liable for any loss or damage caused to a person because of text posted by us on the website. Read full Disclaimer and Privacy Policies.
Follow for daily updates:
