Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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