{"id":5384,"date":"2024-01-18T12:22:25","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T12:22:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/?p=5384"},"modified":"2024-04-09T12:02:25","modified_gmt":"2024-04-09T12:02:25","slug":"zeus-newsletter-january-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/zeus-newsletter-january-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"ZEUS Newsletter January 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"
Highlights:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Corporate Brief<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n RERA Brief<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n NCLT Brief<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Litigation Brief<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Circular No. 2023-24\/87 dated 11.12.2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India in regard to Sovereign Gold Bond (SGB) Scheme 2023-24.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Circular No. 2023-24\/88 dated 12.12.2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India in regard to the processing of e-mandates of recurring transactions.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Circular No. 2023-24\/90 dated 19.12.2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India in regard to investment in Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Circular No. 2023\/189 dated 18.12.2023 issued by SEBI in regard to simplification of requirements for grant of accreditation to investors. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Circular No. 2023\/186 dated 11.12.2023 issued by SEBI in regard to Credit of units of AIFs in dematerialized form.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Circular No. 2023\/190 dated 19.12.2023 in regard to Principles of Financial Market Infrastructures. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Circular No. 2023\/196 dated 28.12.2023 issued by SEBI in regard to Framework on Social Stock Exchange.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Press Note dated 01.12.2023 issued by Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority on instructions to the promoters.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Press Note dated 04.12.2023 issued by UP RERA on standard guidelines for advertisements, sale and promotion of project.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Order No. GujRERA\/Order No. 85 dated 05.12.2023 issued by Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority on Implementation of Hybrid Mode of hearing in adjudication process of Complaints\/Review Applications\/Execution Applications put up before the Authority.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Office Memo vide Letter No. 67 UP RERA\/CA\/2023-24 dated 06.12.2023 issued by UP RERA.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Press Release dated 09.12.2023 issued by UP RERA regarding restrictions to pay from separate bank account.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Press Release dated 12.12.2023 issued by UP RERA on norms for renaming and closing of bank accounts of a project.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Office Order No. <\/strong>F1 (31)RJ\/RERA\/2019\/9069 dated 22.12.2023 issued by Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority on Procedure for scrutiny and further proceedings in the complaints.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Whether the MSME registration procured by a Corporate Debtor after initation of the CIRP proceedings of the Corporate Debtor entitle the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor to the exemptions provided in Section 240A of the I&B Code to the disqualifications given in Section 29A of the I&B Code?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Factual Background <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (\u201cCIRP<\/strong>\u201d) proceedings of Shree Aashraya Infra-Con Limited (\u201cCorporate Debtor<\/strong>\u201d) was initiated vide Order dated 06.04.2021 and Mr. Hari Babu Thota was appointed as the resolution professional (\u201cRP<\/strong>\u201d) of the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, the RP registered the Corporate Debtor under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSME Act<\/strong>‘) and resolution plans were invited for the resolution of the Corproate Debtor. Pursuant thereto, the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor submitted their resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor.<\/p>\n The RP submitted the resolution plan of the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for their approval. The CoC approved the resolution plan submitted by the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor by 100% vote. Subsequently, the RP filed an application bearing I.A. No. 192\/2022 (\u201cApplication<\/strong>\u201d) before the Hon\u2019ble National Company Law Tribunal (\u201cNCLT<\/strong>\u201d) seeking approval of the NCLT for the resolution plan submitted by the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor. However, the Hon\u2019ble NCLT vide Order dated 28.02.2023 dismissed the Application on the grounds that the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor could not have presented a resolution plan.<\/p>\n Aggrieved by the Order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Hon\u2019ble NCLT, the RP preferred an Appeal bearing C.A. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 110 of 2023 (\u201cAppeal<\/strong>\u201d) before the Hon\u2019ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (\u201cNCLAT<\/strong>\u201d). The NCLAT vide Order dated 02.06.2023 upheld the Order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Hon\u2019ble NCLT and dismissed the Appeal.<\/p>\n Aggrieved by the Order dated 02.06.2023 passed by Hon\u2019ble NCLAT, the RP preferred a Civil Appeal before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Decision of the Supreme Court<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court clarified that the disqualification applicable to ex-management would not extend to MSMEs. The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court while emphasizing that the date of initiation of CIRP proceedings is not the relevant date for Section 240A of the I&B Code, held that the crucial date is the date of submission of resolution plan. Therefore, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the NCLAT, thereby, allowing the civil appeal in the present case.<\/p>\n Reference:<\/u><\/strong> Hari Babu Thota Resolution Professional of Shree Aashraya Infracon Limited [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1642]<\/strong><\/p>\n DISPUTE ARISING FROM CANCELLATION OF A DEED OR A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS ARISING FROM A DEED IS ARBITRABLE<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n IN THE MATTER OF:<\/strong> Sushma Shivkumar Dega and Anr. v Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj and Ors (pronounced by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India on 15.12.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1854 OF 2023)<\/p>\n Facts:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Issues:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Courts Observations and Findings:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Pre-conditions for application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n CASE ANALYSIS<\/u><\/strong>: U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited vs. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7916<\/strong><\/p>\n Decided by Hon\u2019ble High Court of Delhi on 12.12.2023.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Factual matrix:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Key Issue<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Whether for calculating limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, the delay of 6263 days can be excluded and condoned by the Hon\u2019ble High Court of Delhi in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Observations<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n A woman is eligible to be the ‘Karta’ of a Hindu undivided family; prejudices of society cannot serve as justification for depriving rights granted explicitly by the legislature: Delhi High Court<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Manu Gupta v. Sujata Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7722<\/u><\/strong> FACTS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n In the present case, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) called D.R.\u00a0Gupta and Sons was established in 1963. All its assets were declared to belong to the HUF,\u00a0with D.R.\u00a0Gupta as the Karta (head) and sons as coparceners. However, all the five sons eventually passed away. Therefore, a question arose as to who should be the next karta. Respondent No. 1 (daughter of one deceased son) claimed that she was the senior coparcener and thus entitled to become Karta under the 2005 Hindu Succession Act amendment granting daughters with the coparcenary rights. However, the appellant (another family member) disputed this claim. The matter went to the trial court, which ruled in favour of Respondent No. 1,\u00a0citing the 2005 amendment removing gender barriers to coparcenary and Karta status. The appellant therein filed an appeal against the decision of the trial court with the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n OBSERVATION AND DECISION OF THE COURT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n In light of the 2005 amendment of the Hindu Succession Act and its consequences in the meaning of a joint family and its attributes, the Court concluded that a joint Hindu family was made up of male members who shared a common male ancestor, and including their mothers, wives, widows, and unmarried daughters. The institution’s defining characteristic, the concept of sapindaship, or familial relationships, was what united them. According to the Court, a coparcenary is a smaller group that is a subset of a Joint Hindu Family in which a birthright interest in property is generated.<\/p>\n Therefore, giving a woman a different interpretation that would prevent her from having the same rights to property as men would be counterproductive to granting her the status of coparcener and Karta. It was ludicrous to argue that an estate’s owner was denied the ability to manage their land because that right was ancillary to ownership.<\/p>\n The Court held that the eldest member of the family coparcener retained the legal right to be a Karta, even if she was a woman, despite the appellant representing himself as a Karta in official correspondence. The Court further held that being a Karta was a grant of legal status, including the power to manage the HUF properties.<\/p>\n There was no obstacle to Respondent 1’s status as the Karta of the HUF because neither the legislature nor conventional Hindu law in any way restricted a woman’s ability to be a Karta. Additionally, the Court held that societal beliefs could not be used as a justification for denying a woman the rights expressly granted by the legislature. Relying on the landmark judgement of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma<\/em><\/strong>, (2020) 9 SCC 1, the Court held that the daughter’s entitlement to coparcener status could not be dependent on her father’s life expectancy. The criterion of intelligible differentia, which was intended to be addressed by the Hindu Succession Act amendment, could not be upheld by such a distinction. The court, therefore designated Respondent No. 1 to be a Karta in order to represent the HUF before the appropriate body.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Disclaimer:<\/p>\n For private circulation to the addressee only and not for re-circulation. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and\/ or publication of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited. This Newsletter is not intended to be an advertisement or solicitation. The contents<\/em> of this Newsletter are solely meant to inform and is not a substitute for legal advice. Legal advice should be obtained based on the specific circumstances of each case, before relying on the contents of this Newsletter or prior to taking any decision based on the information contained in this Newsletter. ZEUS Law disclaims all responsibility and accepts no liability for the consequences of any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information. If you have received this Newsletter in error, please notify us immediately by telephone.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Copyright \u00a9 2014 ZEUS Law. All rights reserved<\/em>. Replication or redistribution of content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of ZEUS Law.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> (2011) 5 SCC 532.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> (2021) 2 SCC 1.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\u00a0<\/em>Corporate Brief<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Realestate Brief <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
NCLT Brief <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
Litigation Brief <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/u><\/p>\n