After observing the current situation of the corporate debtor no creditor is willing to infuse more funds as they are afraid of losing the same through the enforcement of any law or authority under law.
Insolvency and bankruptcy Law 2016, has categorised the home buyers debt as financial debt to the real estate company/builder and therefore, homebuyers can claim their dues as bank claims its debt.
As per section 8 of IBC an operational creditor, if does not receive amount from corporate debtor, has to deliver a demand notice of unpaid amount along with the copy of invoice demanding payment of the amount involved.
In the light of the provisions and section 238 of IBC, when there arises any inconsistency between the aforementioned two laws the provision of IBC will prevail over the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Under section 14 of the code, the moratorium order is passed. Accordingly till the time moratorium period exists no other action or suit or case or proceedings against the corporate debtor can take place.
In the absence of specific evidence relating to invoices actually forwarded by the appellant and there being a doubt, the insolvency petition cannot be entertained under section 9 of IBC.
If some other recovery proceedings are pending or the amount of claim is disputed before other tribunal or adjudicating body that won’t empower the adjudicating authority to reject the petition.
The Hon’ble NCLAT held the validity of the demand notice sent through whatsapp messenger app wherein the blue tick on the text implies the acceptance of the communication.
The former directors of the corporate debtor shall not merely provide the financial status of the corporate debtor but more than that so that they are aware of the terms to which they are bound.
The Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the Insolvency Petition against the EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. filed by one of the homebuyers i.e. Mr. Neeraj Gupta.