Case Law Details
Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) & Ors vs M/s AMR Infrastructure Ltd. (NCLT, New Delhi)
In a memorable and consequential judgement, in the matter of Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF)& Or’s vs M/s AMR Infrastructure Ltd (CA No. 811(PB/2018 in IB-02(pb)/2017, it has been upheld that the voting threshold in the IBC are merely directory in nature and that preference can be taken to decision taken by the largest percentage in the Committee of Creditors in case of a deadlock. For a homebuyer or commercial property buyer, both of them involved in this case, the judge made an eventful judgement which approved the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional as Resolution Professional and that agenda items 4, 6 to 9 were also deemed to have been approved by majority of Committee of Creditors.
Let us look into details of this case which opens up new vistas of resolution for home buyers/commercial buyers and save their investments in Real Estate.
(Kindly refer my earlier article on Committee of Creditors for its role, selection of its members and how to become its members by following proper procedure laid down in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016).
Brief details of the case:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
