ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, S.RAVINDRA BHAT, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Rajendra K. Bhutta – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. This appeal raises a question as to the correct interpretation of Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). The facts necessary to appreciate the setting in which this question arises are as follows:
housed in the project for joint development of land, ad measuring about 40 acres), which envisaged re-development insofar as 672 tenements in Siddharth Nagar, Goregaon, Mumbai were concerned.
ii. On 03.03.2008, the Maharashtra State Government granted its approval to the aforesaid Resolution.
iii. On 10.04.2008, a Tripartite Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Joint Development Agreement”) was entered into between the Society representing persons occupying 672 tenements, MHADA and the
Ananthasubramania Iyer v. Sarada Amma 1978 KLT 338
Abbas v. Sankaran Namboodiri (1993) 1 KLT 76
Chief Inspector of Mines vs. Lala Karam Chand Thapar (1962) 1 SCR 9
Dunlop India Limited vs. A.A. Rahna and Another (2011) 5 SCC 778
Dr.Mohammad Ibrahim v. Syed Ahmed Khan and another
Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others (1980) 4 SCC 341
Koteswar Vittal Kamath vs. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co (1969) 1 SCC 255
LIC v. Escorts Ltd. (2001) 1 SCC 78
Mathai Antony v. Abraham (2004) 3 KLT 169
Rajagopalan v. Gopalan (2004) 1 KLT (SN) 54
Ram Dass v. Davinder (2004) 3 SCC 684
Sushil Kumar Agarwal vs. Meenakshi Sadhu and Others (2019) 2 SCC 241
Ude Bhan and Others vs. Kapoor Chand and Others AIR 1967 P&H 53 (FB)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.