Transfer of Property Act 1882

Lease Transactions Under RERA

Real estate is one of the largest industries in India. In the past two decades, the real estate sector has seen a boost in the country, in terms of the quantum of development (commercial and residential properties) and the price of properties. In spite of the same, real estate has remained the most unregulated of sectors, with every State having a different law to regulate properties. Hence, there was no single superior legislation, which would govern this industry.

The absence of a specific, stringent law for this industry led to exploitation of buyers of the property, by the developers. For example, there could be excessive delay in construction and handing over possession of property, biased/arbitrary contracts, deduction in the usable area of the property by developers, and a lack of transparency in the sector, and such like. Due to these issues, the Government of India, introduced a central legislation viz. the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Act) to regulate the real estate industry, resolve the issued faced by buyers and bring transparency in this sector. All the States have been mandated to form the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for the implementation of Act and form rules and regulations under the same.
Continue Reading

In its judgment pronounced on May 9, 2018, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad, in the case of ICICI Bank Limited v. Mr. Anuj Jain (Resolution Professional of Jaypee Infratech Limited), addressed the issue of the rights of third-party security holders of a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The judgment negated ICICI Bank Limited’s contention that it should be considered a financial creditor of Jaypee Infratech Limited, the corporate debtor. ICICI Bank’s claim was based on the corporate debtor having created mortgages on its property to secure loans provided to Jaiprakash Associates Limited, the holding company of the corporate debtor. The NCLT concluded that there was no financial debt owed to ICICI Bank by the corporate debtor, and so it could not be considered a financial creditor of the corporate debtor.

We consider here the correctness of the judgment and whether the NCLT has considered all the implications of its finding.


Continue Reading