Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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