Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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