Back
N. J. JAMADAR
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Meeti Developers Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
(N.J. Jamadar, J.)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for amendment of the plaint under order I Rule 10 and order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (The Code) to implead Ajmera Luxe Realty Pvt. Ltd.(R7) as a party Defendant No. 7 and make certain averments and seek additional reliefs.
3. Meeti Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Meeti), the Defendant No. 1 entered into a Development Agreement dated 27th December 2006 with New Kamal Kunj Co-Operative Housing Society Limited (The Society), the Defendant No. 6, to redevelop the society premises. Under the terms of the development agreement, Meeti Developers Pvt. Ltd. (D1) was required to construct the rehab units for the existing members of the Society (D6) and had right to utilize and deal with the balance available FSI quantified at 74,226 square feet in such manner as Meeti (D1) may deem fit. Addendum Agreements were executed in furtherance of the development agreement, on 31st October 2015 and 18th March 2017. Under the terms of these agreements, Meeti(D1) was authorized to create security interest or encumbrance on the developer's share and the society (D6) agreed that it shall not raise a
Amendments to pleadings are permissible if they do not fundamentally change the nature of the suit and are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy.
Termination of a development agreement is valid where a corporate debtor persistently defaults, and such rights do not qualify as assets under the moratorium rule of the IBC.
The court ruled that the moratorium under Section 33(5) of the IBC does not apply to pending suits, thereby allowing them to proceed despite liquidation proceedings.
(1) Assets of company would include amounts lying to credit in bank accounts.(2) Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not be available to Court to countenance breach of a statuary provision.
Moratoriums under Sections 14 and 96 of IBC against corporate and personal guarantors do not bar recovery proceedings against principal borrower with no insolvency proceedings initiated against it, d....
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and not inconsistent with existing pleadings. However, amendments introducing new cause....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
