Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 26 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - Initiation of CIRP - Default in repayment of Debt - extension of time to complete the project - Section 89 of RERA - Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is settled principle of law that wherever time is the essence of a contract in such types of construction contracts, the builder is required to adhere to the date of delivery mentioned in the builder-buyer agreement despite the presence of similar reservations in the contract. The Corporate Debtor has proceeded on incorrect premise of Section 89 of RERA. The provisions of RERA cannot override the non-obstante clause laid down under Section 238 of IBC. It is a settled principle of law that a non-obstante clause has effect only in case of a conflict between two statutes. It is submitted that RERA and IBC work in two different fields, while the former has been enacted with a view to regulate and promote the real estate sector while ensuring the protection of consumer interest; the latter seeks to consolidate the law relating to insolvency and bankruptcy and ensure resolution of insolvency of corporate persons, firms and individuals in a time bound manner. Thus, there is no question of a conflict between the two enactments and both will have an overriding effect in the fields exclusively assigned to them. Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
|