News Details- (Get Professional Updates on Whatsapp, Msg on
8285393786) More
News
SC upholds IBC amendments mandating minimum threshold for insolvency process against developers
PrintThe Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that introduced a minimum threshold of 100 home buyers or 10% of the total allottees of a project, whichever was lower, for initiating the insolvency process against a defaulting developer.
The homebuyers had not taken kindly to these amendments on the ground that in every other category even a single creditor could by itself move the insolvency court.
They had argued that this was discriminatory and placed homebuyers at a disadvantage as they would have to herd a minimum number before they could act against any errant builder. It was also time consuming, they had claimed in court.
Before these amendments were made, even a single buyer with claims of at least ₹1 lakh could move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking insolvency proceedings against any builder. The amendments had been brought in after a top court ruling, which placed homebuyers on par a with other financial creditors.
Some of the petitioners were money lenders, who had to also fulfil the same requirements to recover their monies lent to the builders for their real estate projects.
Defending the law, the government had said that it reduces multiplicity of cases in the NCLT and ensures quick disposal.
A three-judge bench led by Justice R F Nariman upheld the 2019 amendments on Tuesday. The bench rejected the argument that the law was created by way of pandering to the real estate lobby and succumbing to their pressure or by way of placating their vested interests.
“Such an argument is nothing but a thinly disguised attempt at questioning the law of the legislature based on malice. A law is made by a body of elected representatives of the people. When they act in their legislative capacity, what is being rolled out is ordinary law. Should the same legislators sit to amend the Constitution, they would be acting as members of the Constituent Assembly,” the bench said.
The homebuyers had not taken kindly to these amendments on the ground that in every other category even a single creditor could by itself move the insolvency court.
They had argued that this was discriminatory and placed homebuyers at a disadvantage as they would have to herd a minimum number before they could act against any errant builder. It was also time consuming, they had claimed in court.
Before these amendments were made, even a single buyer with claims of at least ₹1 lakh could move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking insolvency proceedings against any builder. The amendments had been brought in after a top court ruling, which placed homebuyers on par a with other financial creditors.
Some of the petitioners were money lenders, who had to also fulfil the same requirements to recover their monies lent to the builders for their real estate projects.
Defending the law, the government had said that it reduces multiplicity of cases in the NCLT and ensures quick disposal.
A three-judge bench led by Justice R F Nariman upheld the 2019 amendments on Tuesday. The bench rejected the argument that the law was created by way of pandering to the real estate lobby and succumbing to their pressure or by way of placating their vested interests.
“Such an argument is nothing but a thinly disguised attempt at questioning the law of the legislature based on malice. A law is made by a body of elected representatives of the people. When they act in their legislative capacity, what is being rolled out is ordinary law. Should the same legislators sit to amend the Constitution, they would be acting as members of the Constituent Assembly,” the bench said.
Category : Income Tax | Comments : 0 | Hits : 861
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
Search News
News By Categories More Categories
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000
Comments