Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

LAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CONSTITUTES "PROPERTY" AND "ASSET" UNDER INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE: SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India has ruled that land development rights constitute "property" and "asset" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, clarifies the interpretation of the terms "asset" and "property" in the absence of specific definitions in relevant acts and laws.

According to the judgment, the creation of a bundle of rights and interests in favor of the Corporate Debtor over immovable property amounts to "property" within the meaning of the IBC. The court stated, "A bundle of rights and interests were created in favor of the Corporate Debtor... these rights and interests in the immovable property are definitely liable to be included by the Resolution Professional in the Information Memorandum and the Resolution Professional is duty bound under Section 25(2)(a) to take custody and control of the same."

The court also addressed the issue of the exclusion of assets owned by third parties but in possession of the Corporate Debtor under contractual arrangements. It held that the exclusion is limited to Section 18 of the IBC, and the Explanation under Section 18 does not extend to Section 25. The judgment further emphasized that the possession of the Corporate Debtor needs to be protected, stating, "NCLT as well as NCLAT were right in holding that the possession of the Corporate Debtor, of the property needs to be protected."

This judgment provides clarity on the scope of "property" and "asset" under the IBC, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the rights and interests held by the Corporate Debtor. It has significant implications for insolvency proceedings involving immovable property and will guide the actions of Resolution Professionals in handling such assets.

Date of Decision: March 14, 2023

VICTORY IRON WORKS LTD. vs JITENDRA LOHIA & ANR.   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/14-Mar-2023-VICTORY-Vs-JATINDRA.pdf"]                  

Latest Legal News