In response to the damage done to the economy the Indian Government has placed certain embargoes and granted certain grace periods to help reduce the financial strain caused by the complete shutdown of the economy this includes the three month moratorium that has been given by the RBI regarding payments of EMI.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs had earlier limited initiation of fresh insolvency proceedings for a period of 6 months which now stands extended to 1 year.
The NCLAT held that CIRP against Real Estate Company shall be limited to Project concerned and will not affect other projects of the developers.
Laws relating to IBC that caused inadequate and ineffective results with undue delays has proven its success by a dramatic reduction for resolution of stressed assets at an average of 340 days as compared 4.3 years in the era before the IBC as per the most Economic Survey.
Since IBC enactments, it is necessary to consider the hits and misses of this momentous legislation so as to truly exploit the potential of the insolvency regime.
The period of lockdown imposed by the Central Government in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak shall not be counted for the purposes of the time-line for any activity that could not be completed due to such lockdown.
Earlier the allottees had an option of claiming refund of the entire amount. But under the reverse CIRP, the allottees will not be able to claim the refund.
The term Moratorium is nowhere defined in the Code, however, the term in basic parlance means, ”a stopping of activity for an agreed amount of time”.
In the case of Ashok Tripathi and Anr Vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. that a decree-holder/homebuyer having refund order from RERA or other courts shall not be deemed as a homebuyer but a financial creditor.
As per the settled law there is no law or provision which states that either the Adjudicating or the Appellate Authority has the powers to question the resolution plan approved by the COC until and unless the same is barred by some irregularity.