A notice of dispute to a claim under the IBC (Section 9), 2016 is not admissible if made over a telephonic communication and not supported by phone records.
The matter is that in a situation where the Applicant is unable to prove the amount advanced as loan without proper documentations, such loan amount would not meet the requirements of a “Financial Debt”.
NCLAT, New Delhi Bench has held that claims towards rent of leasehold property do not fall within the definition of the operational debt under IBC.
The resolution plan can be challenged by an aggrieved person as per the grounds mentioned in Sub-Section (3) of Section 61 of the Code.
There is a reaffirmation that the moratorium granted by the Court does not cover pending criminal litigation.
Open parking spaces fall within the definition of common areas in the RERA Act, and hence developers cannot charge homebuyers for open parking spaces.
Once the resolution plan is approved and is implemented under IBC, no issue can be raised at a later stage when resolution Process Costs and fees of the Resolution Professional.
It was observed that once the complainant has given the aforesaid consent he cannot withdraw it as respondents have acted upon the same.
Claims towards rent of leasehold property do not fall within the definition of the operational debt in terms of Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Due to the unavailability of funds from banks and developers getting bankrupt, small developers will get into joint ventures, mergers, and acquisitions for their survival within the market.