{"id":336213,"date":"2024-11-29T14:00:57","date_gmt":"2024-11-29T08:30:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=336213"},"modified":"2024-12-26T11:53:57","modified_gmt":"2024-12-26T06:23:57","slug":"delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure\u2019; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi:<\/span> In a petition filed under Section 7<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 alleging delays in possession in \u201cRaheja Shilas Low Rise\u201d despite payments by a group of 43 homebuyers, a Division bench of Ramalingam Sudhakar, CJ., (President) and Avinash K. Srivastava (Technical Member), admitted the insolvency petition under Section 7<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> and directed initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M\/s Raheja Developers Limited.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/h3>\n

In the instant matter, the Corporate Debtor (respondent) approached the applicants, a group of 43 homebuyers and entered into \u2018agreements to sell\u2019 with a commitment to deliver possession within 24 months and a six-month grace period for delays in the project \u201cRaheja Shilas Low Rise\u201d developed by Raheja Developers Limited. The project was part of a larger group housing development undertaken by the Corporate Debtor, which included phases such as \u201cRaheja Atharva\u201d and \u201cRaheja Shilas High Rise.\u201d The applicants paid over 95% of the total price, amounting to 112.9 crores. Despite this, the Corporate Debtor failed to deliver possessions, even after the extended grace period.<\/p>\n

Parties\u2019 Contentions<\/h3>\n

The applicants contended that the Corporate Debtor has committed a recurring default, and it satisfies the conditions under Section 7<\/a> of IBC<\/a>, as both debt and default are evident. They further submitted that the non-delivery constitutes a recurring cause of action under Section 22<\/a> of the Limitation Act, 1963<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The applicants contended that the Corporate Debtor failed to obtain environmental clearance as mandated under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. It was also argued that the project was misrepresented in Form REP-I submitted to the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) which came out in RTIs filed. The applicants contended that the Corporate Debtor cannot claim a defence of Force Majeure, as delays were attributable to its own actions, including but not limited to non-compliance with environmental laws.<\/p>\n

However, the Corporate Debtor contended that the applicants do not meet the statutory threshold required for initiating insolvency proceedings, as per Section 7<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. The Corporate Debtor further contended that the claim is time-barred, as the default allegedly occurred between 2012 and 2014, hence the filing of the application in 2023 beyond the limitation period. The Corporate Debtor further argued that the force majeure clause (Clause 4.4) of the Flat-Buyer Agreements, which excuses delays in possession due to factors such as non-availability of materials, infrastructure delays, and delays in obtaining the Occupation Certificate (OC).<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Whether the \u201cRaheja Shilas Low Rise\u201d project is an independent project or a part of a phased Group Housing Colony Project?<\/li>\n
  2. Whether the delay in handing over possession is attributable to the Corporate Debtor or falls under the force majeure clause?<\/li>\n
  3. \n

    Whether the essential elements of \u201cdebt\u201d and \u201cdefault\u201d are established to initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    NCLT Observations<\/h3>\n

    Issue 1: Independent Project or Part of a Larger Development?<\/p>\n

    The NCLT observed that the Corporate Debtor admitted that the development was part of a phased group housing project but had obtained separate RERA registrations for individual phases, including \u201cRaheja Shilas Low Rise.\u201d It was noted that the documents, including a 2019 affidavit filed by the Corporate Debtor before NCLAT, indicated conflicting claims about whether the project was independent.<\/p>\n

    The NCLT observed that the Corporate Debtor in the present case has multiple projects but the project at question is a standalone project and the applicants in this project have fulfilled the threshold under IBC. The NCLT concluded that while \u201cRaheja Shilas Low Rise\u201d had a separate RERA registration, it formed part of the larger phased development.<\/p>\n

    Issue 2: Delay in Possession \u2014 Force Majeure?<\/p>\n

    The NCLT noted that the Corporate Debtor argued delays were due to unforeseeable circumstances, including litigation and delays in approvals such as obtaining Occupancy Certificate, However, the NCLT noted that the Corporate Debtor himself delayed Occupancy Certificate applications by several years (applied in 2017 for a project due in 2012-2014). It was noted that the procedural requirements like NOCs and compliance with statutory norms are standard obligations, not force majeure. The NCLT noted that the plea of Force Majeure cannot be applicable in the case because the hurdles are practical in nature. The NCLT found the delay attributable to the Corporate Debtor\u2019s inaction, not external uncontrollable events.<\/p>\n

    Issue 3: Debt and Default under Section 7 of IBC<\/p>\n

    The NCLT identified a “financial debt” based on payments made by the Applicants for their units, default in delivering possession by the agreed timeline and acknowledgment of delay by the Corporate Debtor in various communications. The NCLT deemed the default on the part of the Corporate Debtor is continuing, making the Section 7<\/a> IBC<\/a> application within the limitation period.<\/p>\n

    Court\u2019s Decision<\/h3>\n

    The NCLT admitted the application and held that the debt is due on the part of the Corporate Debtor and that satisfies the requirements as per the IBC for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The NCLT appointed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to manage the assets of Corporate Debtor and ordered the Corporate Debtor to handover all the relevant documents in a week. The NCLT instructed the IRP to issue public notices and invite claims from creditors. The NCLT further directed the applicants to deposit \u00b95,00,000 for CIRP expenses.<\/p>\n

    [Vipul Jain<\/span> v. Raheja Developers Ltd<\/span>., 2024 SCC OnLine NCLT 3705<\/a>, Decided on 19-11-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    \n

    Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

    Mr. Manu Chaturvedi and Mrs. Devika Singh Ray Chowdhary, Counsel for the Financial Creditor\/Applicants<\/p>\n

    Mr. P Nagesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Ms. Suditi, Mr. Abhishek Rana and Mr. Akshay Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent\/ Corporate Debtor<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The NCLT held that non-delivery of possession despite payments and continued acknowledgment of liability through emails and communications proved default under Section 7 IBC.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":315346,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[43781,22814,59090,15811,75755,73959,75750,3539,12521,53788,32980,75751,75754,74546,30228,33589,75752,75753],"class_list":["post-336213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-cirp","tag-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process","tag-debt-and-default","tag-force-majeure","tag-homebuyers-rights","tag-insolvency-proceeding","tag-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers","tag-National_Company_Law_Tribunal","tag-nclt","tag-nsolvency-and-bankruptcy-code","tag-occupancy-certificate","tag-raheja-developers","tag-raheja-shilas-low-rise","tag-rera-registration","tag-resolution-plan","tag-section-7-ibc","tag-statutory-compliance","tag-statutory-compliance-delays"],"yoast_head":"\n'Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure'; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"NCLT admitted insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers and held that Delays arising from statutory compliance cannot be considered as force majeure.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure\u2019; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NCLT admitted insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers and held that Delays arising from statutory compliance cannot be considered as force majeure.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-11-29T08:30:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-26T06:23:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure\u2019; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/\",\"name\":\"'Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure'; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-11-29T08:30:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-26T06:23:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"NCLT admitted insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers and held that Delays arising from statutory compliance cannot be considered as force majeure.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"National Company Law Tribunal\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure\u2019; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"'Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure'; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers | SCC Times","description":"NCLT admitted insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers and held that Delays arising from statutory compliance cannot be considered as force majeure.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure\u2019; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers","og_description":"NCLT admitted insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers and held that Delays arising from statutory compliance cannot be considered as force majeure.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-11-29T08:30:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-12-26T06:23:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure\u2019; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/","name":"'Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure'; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.webp","datePublished":"2024-11-29T08:30:57+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-26T06:23:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"NCLT admitted insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers and held that Delays arising from statutory compliance cannot be considered as force majeure.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"National Company Law Tribunal"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/delays-arising-from-statutory-compliance-not-force-majeure-nclt-admits-insolvency-proceeding-against-raheja-developers-scc-times\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Delays arising from statutory compliance not force majeure\u2019; NCLT admits insolvency proceeding against Raheja Developers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/National-Company-Law-Tribunal.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":262217,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/22\/can-application-filed-under-s-951-read-with-s-601-ibc-be-rejected-on-ground-that-no-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-was-pending-against-corporate-debtor-nclat-addresses\/","url_meta":{"origin":336213,"position":0},"title":"Can application filed under S. 95(1) read with S. 60(1) IBC be rejected on ground that no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was pending against Corporate Debtor? NCLAT addresses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0If CIRP or Liquidation Proceeding of a Corporate Debtor is pending before a NCLT, application relating to Insolvency Process of Corporate or Personal Guarantor should be filed before same NCLT. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262163,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/21\/understanding-the-jurisdictional-dilemma-in-personal-guarantors-insolvency-resolution-process\/","url_meta":{"origin":336213,"position":1},"title":"To File or not to File: Understanding the Jurisdictional Dilemma in Personal Guarantor\u2019s Insolvency Resolution Process","author":"Editor","date":"February 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shivam Singhal\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-142-5.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-142-5.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-142-5.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-142-5.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-142-5.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270157,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/15\/nclt-can-a-financial-creditor-initiate-insolvency-resolution-process-against-a-personal-guarantor\/","url_meta":{"origin":336213,"position":2},"title":"NCLT| Can a Financial Creditor initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Personal Guarantor?","author":"Editor","date":"July 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad: The Bench of N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath, Judicial Member, and Veera Brahma Rao Arekapud, Technical Member held that a guarantor cannot enjoy the right of subrogation enunciated in the Contract Act, 1872, when the payment made by the guarantor regards the debt for which the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Financial Creditor","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/NCLT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/NCLT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/NCLT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251773,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/27\/personal-guarantor\/","url_meta":{"origin":336213,"position":3},"title":"NCLT | Personal Guarantor not liable to be prosecuted under S. 95 IBC where corporate debtor concerned is not under corporate insolvency resolution process","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai:\u00a0Coram of H.V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member dismissed an interlocutory application filed against a personal guarantor under Section 95 (\"application by creditor to initiate insolvency resolution process\") of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, finding that the Corporate Debtor concerned\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":364289,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/sc-issues-notice-appeal-layoff-during-insolvency-ibc-v-id-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":336213,"position":4},"title":"SC issues notice in appeal challenging lay-offs during insolvency: Key questions raised on IBC-ID Act Conflict","author":"Apoorva","date":"October 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The appeal challenges the NCLAT\u2019s order upholding a purported lay-off by Resolution Professional, which the appellant claims was a disguised and unlawful retrenchment. The Court is set to examine whether IBC overrides ID Act provisions and whether such retrenchments can legally occur under the garb of lay-offs during insolvency proceedings.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"lay-offs during insolvency","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/lay-offs-during-insolvency.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/lay-offs-during-insolvency.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/lay-offs-during-insolvency.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/lay-offs-during-insolvency.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239104,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/14\/weighing-the-effect-and-need-of-the-minimum-threshold-on-the-home-buyers\/","url_meta":{"origin":336213,"position":5},"title":"Weighing the effect and need of the \u2018minimum threshold\u2019 on the home-buyers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Pareekshit Bishnoi & Parveen Kumar Aggarwal*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/home-buyer-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/home-buyer-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/home-buyer-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/home-buyer-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/home-buyer-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=336213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336213\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/315346"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=336213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=336213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=336213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}