The case involves an appeal against an order dated January 23, 2017, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which held that the appellants, Nikhil Mehta and Sons, are not 'Financial Creditors' as defined under Section 5(7) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellants had filed an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code to trigger the insolvency process against AMR Infrastructure Ltd., the 'Corporate Debtor'. The NCLT dismissed the application, leading to the present appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appellants argued that the 'Committed Returns/Assured Returns' plan offered by the respondent, a real estate developer, constituted a financial debt under the I&B Code,
…Nikhil Mehta and Sons (appellants) entered into agreements/Memorandum of Understanding with AMR Infrastructure Ltd. (respondent/corporate debtor) for the purchase of three units: a residential flat, shop, and office space in projects developed by the respondent. The appellants purchased one unit under a 'Committed Return Plan,' where they paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration upfront. The respondent agreed to pay a fixed monthly amount as 'Committed Returns/Assured Returns' until the physical possession of the unit was handed over. The respondent started paying the committed returns but stopped in April 2014 for some units and January 2014 for others. The appellants filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, before
…Sign in to view the parties.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New…
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal…
The case involves an appeal against an order dated January 23, 2017, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which held that the appellants, Nikhil Mehta and Sons, are not 'Financial Creditors' as defined under Section 5(7) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellants had filed an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code to trigger the insolvency process against AMR Infrastructure Ltd., the 'Corporate Debtor'. The NCLT dismissed the application, leading to the present appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appellants argued that the 'Committed Returns/Assured Returns' plan offered by the respondent, a real estate developer, constituted a financial debt under the I&B Code,
…Nikhil Mehta and Sons (appellants) entered into agreements/Memorandum of Understanding with AMR Infrastructure Ltd. (respondent/corporate debtor) for the purchase of three units: a residential flat, shop, and office space in projects developed by the respondent. The appellants purchased one unit under a 'Committed Return Plan,' where they paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration upfront. The respondent agreed to pay a fixed monthly amount as 'Committed Returns/Assured Returns' until the physical possession of the unit was handed over. The respondent started paying the committed returns but stopped in April 2014 for some units and January 2014 for others. The appellants filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, before
…The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New…
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal…