Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Vinay Goel, J
M/s Buildwell – Appellant
Versus
Joseph Velivil – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination of illegality of the attachment during moratorium. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments surrounding pre-cirp claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on the moratorium and its implications for enforcement actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal binding nature of approved resolution plans regarding extinguishment of claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of nclt and future steps for the applicants. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
O R D E R
1. The Applicants are the Successful Resolution Applicant and the former Resolution Professional who is now the Chairman of the Project Monitoring Committee, as per the terms of the Resolution Plan approved by this Tribunal in CP(IB)/01/KOB/2021. The Applicant is aggrieved with the attachment order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “KSCDRC”). The application is filed under Section 31 (4) & 32A of IBC, 2016, read with Rule 11 NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking the following reliefs: -
a) To declare the attachment of Apartment IC in the Nucleus Eleganza Project with 3.32% undivided share situated at land property bearing Sch. No.1/.1Sy.7
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
