The completion certificate is not in need for buildings to get a power connection. Madras High Court has allowed Tangedco to provide power connections to buildings even without a Completion certificate in the first place. However, it directs the corporation to strictly comply with the Tamil Nadu Combined Building Development Rules, 2019, while providing connections. Tangedco to provide electrical connection Chief Justice of Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order while dismissing the plea. It is transferred by Coimbatore’s consumer cause, which directed Tangedco to not provide electrical connection without a completion certificate. Service connections without the certificate of settlement The petitioner argued that the 2019 rule determines certain norms. The service connections such as electricity supply, water supply, and sewerage connections should not be provided for the building class specified in rule 20 unless the certificate of completion is obtained from the development authority. But, Tangedco on October 6, 2020, issued a memorandum that deviated from the rules and allowed it to provide service connections even without the certificate of settlement, the Applicant argued. Electricity supply connections to certain consumer classes Against Plea, Tangedco says that the draft scheme was prepared to provide electricity supply connections. That is too certain consumer classes as a matter of fact. “These are people who have established small shops or occupy small portions of existing buildings in like manner. They need a low voltage power supply connection and the certificate of completion cannot force from them,” it said. Disconnection of Connection […]
News
There is no back door pact for the defaulting promoter: what the Supreme Court court means Clarification by the Supreme Court In connection with the promoter’s participation: In the bank’s liquidation process of bankruptcy will speed up the resolution process. The Supreme Court has decided that the company’s promoter went bankrupt. This was prohibited from offers for their own company under the part of 29A of Insolvency and bankruptcy code (IBC). They are not allowed to use any schemes or settings to get their company control even if it enters into liquidation. What did the Supreme Court say? In the case involving Gujarat NRE Liquidation, the National Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has been held that everyone who does not meet the requirements, below the part of the 29A IBC, to bid the company, also prohibited from proposing a compromise scheme and setting based on section 230 of the Companies Act. Section 230 of the companies act Section 230 of the companies act allows promoters or corporate creditors to propose a scheme of arrangement or compromise in which company debt can be restructured. In its assessment enforcing the NCLAT decision, The Apex Court said that while section 230 will apply to promoters and creditors in the normal course during the working of the company, it will not apply if the company faces liquidation under the IBC. Compromise based on Section 230 of the 2013 Law “The company must be safe from its management and corporate death. This will lead to real […]
High Court sets up committee for early redressal of cheque bounce cases The Central govt has “on a basic level acknowledged” the requirement for making extra courts to influence such cases, the solicitor general educates the Supreme Court. Panel under the chairmanship of chief justice of the high court The Supreme Court on Wednesday established a panel under the chairmanship of chief justice of the high court to think about the ideas and present a report in a quarter of a year indicating the means to be taken for early removal of cheque bounce cases the nation over. The necessity for making extra courts A five-judge bench headed by judge S A Bobde was educated by solicitor general Tushar Mehta that the Center has “on a basic level acknowledged” the necessity for making extra courts to influence such cases after the modalities are found on the issue. Pending more than 35 lakh cheque bounce cases The Court had a week ago named the pending more than 35 lakh cheque bounce cases as “unusual” and proposed the Center to return up with a law to frame extra courts for a specific time as it would be an ideal opportunity to influence such cases. It had said that the Center has the capacity under Article 247 of the Constitution including the obligation to work out additional courts for cheque bounce cases under arrangements of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. Hearing a suo-motu case Article 247 of the Constitution offers the capacity to […]
