Sunday, Sep 27, 2020 | Last Update : 01:38 AM IST

186th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra130045899280634761 Andhra Pradesh6614585881695606 Tamil Nadu5693705138369148 Karnataka5572124503028417 Uttar Pradesh3785333136865450 Delhi2644502284365147 West Bengal2410592110204665 Odisha201059165432820 Telangana1838661524411091 Bihar175898161510881 Assam167374136712625 Kerala160935111327636 Gujarat1303911105923394 Rajasthan1247301042881412 Haryana1205781012731273 Madhya Pradesh117588932382152 Punjab107096840253134 Chhatisgarh9856566860777 Jharkhand7770964515661 Jammu and Kashmir69832495571105 Uttarakhand4533233642555 Goa3107125071386 Puducherry2548919781494 Tripura2412717464262 Himachal Pradesh136799526152 Chandigarh112128677145 Manipur9791760263 Arunachal Pradesh8649623014 Nagaland5768469311 Meghalaya5158334343 Sikkim2707199431 Mizoram178612880
  Business   In Other News  10 Aug 2019  Homebuyers can file insolvency cases: Supreme Court

Homebuyers can file insolvency cases: Supreme Court

THE ASIAN AGE. | PRAMOD KUMAR
Published : Aug 10, 2019, 1:24 am IST
Updated : Aug 10, 2019, 1:24 am IST

The court described remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and RERA as “concurrent remedies”.

The SC order came on petitions filed on behalf of 181 builders.
 The SC order came on petitions filed on behalf of 181 builders.

New Delhi: In a major relief to the distressed homebuyers, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, elevating the home buyers as “financial creditors” and permitting them to initiate insolvency proceedings against the real estate developers in default of their commitment to provide homes.

Rejecting the contention that the amendment to the IBC empowering the homebuyers to initiate insolvency proceedings was violative of fundamental right to equality and right to profession, court said, “The Amendment Act to the Code does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.”

 

The bench comprising Justices Rohintron Fali Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant in their judgment also rejected the contention that the explanation to Section 5(8)(f) saying “any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing” would enlarge the scope of the provision.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Nariman said, “Given the fact that the Amendment Act has been held to be constitutionally valid, and considering that its language is clear and unambiguous, it is not possible to accede to the contentions of the petitioners to read down the clear provisions of the Amendment Act in the manner suggested by them.”

 

Holding that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 has to be read harmoniously with the IBC, the court said, “It is only in the event of conflict that the Code will prevail over the RERA.”

Besides the IBC, the court said that the homebuyers could agitate their grievance before the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and RERA.

The court described remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and RERA as “concurrent remedies”.

The SC order came on petitions filed on behalf of 181 builders.

Tags: insolvency and bankruptcy code, rera