&w=3840&q=100)
Maharashtra govt passes bill allowing SRA to recover pending transit dues
The amendment bill seeks to treat unpaid rent to slum dwellers as arrears of land revenue, thereby empowering the SRA to initiate recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC).
As per the proposed amendment, if a defaulting builder lacks sufficient company assets to clear the dues, the liability can extend to the personal property of its directors or partners. Currently, the SRA can issue stop-work notices or deny new permissions to a defaulting developer.
The bill also seeks to reduce the window for dissenting slum dwellers to join the SRA schemes - from 120 days to 60 days - once a majority (over 50 per cent) has consented to a redevelopment plan.
After 60 days, those who do not join the scheme risk losing their claim to on-site rehabilitation and may only be considered for relocation elsewhere, subject to availability.
Another provision of the bill allows land under slum redevelopment to be handed over to government agencies like MMRDA, MHADA, MSRDC, and CIDCO within 30 days of issuing a letter of intent, enabling a faster execution of public sector-led projects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
7 hours ago
- Mint
Mint Explainer: Understanding the proposals under the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code amendment bill
Finance and corporate affairs minister Nirmala Sitharaman tabled the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. The proposed amendments aim to reduce resolution delays, maximise value for all stakeholders, and improve governance of all processes under the IBC. They propose to focus on the creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process which involves creditors settling insolvency matters out of court, thereby reducing the burden of cases on insolvency tribunals. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) will only have to approve the resolution plans, thus reducing the timelines under the IBC. Mint takes a closer look at the amendments. Why was the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) introduced in 2016? The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, one of India's new legal laws, was introduced in 2016 to deal with insolvent companies and individuals that could not repay their debt, which sometimes ran into hundreds of crores. A year later, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was entrusted with legal powers to initiate proceedings to recover loans that had become non-performing assets (NPA). It was then that the central bank made public a list of 12 companies which defaulted on huge loans. Interestingly, those companies were called the 'dirty dozen'. This list included big companies such as Bhushan Steel, Essar Steel, Jaypee Infratech, Jyoti Structures, Bhushan Power, and Amtek Auto. The aim was to resolve stressed assets in a time-bound manner while also improving the economy's financial position. What are the key changes proposed in the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2025? Under the amendments, the government has proposed creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process (CIIRP), group insolvency, cross-border insolvency and pre-packaged insolvency for companies, among others. These amendments will help in smooth admission, resolution and liquidation. 'The proposed amendments do promise to cure the current maladies, including treatment of statutory charges, and provide for newer solutions like pre-packaged insolvencies, group insolvencies, cross-border insolvencies," said Soumitra Majumdar, partner, JSA Advocates & Solicitors. 'The current sub-committee should undertake wider public consultations for ironing out the remaining creases through the benefit of experience." Why is there a need for a voluntary group insolvency? A new chapter has been included in the Bill to empower the central government to create rules for coordinated or consolidated insolvency proceedings for group companies. Group insolvency is a process in which a cluster of related companies—typically part of the same corporate structure—jointly enter insolvency proceedings, often when the group as a whole is unable to meet its financial obligations. The primary goal is to preserve the overall value of the group's assets while reducing the total cost of the corporate insolvency resolution. A notable example is the Videocon Group case, the first instance of group insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). In 2021, the State Bank of India (SBI) approached the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking substantive consolidation of 15 Videocon entities into a single resolution process. This case became a reference point for similar matters. In the Axis Bank Ltd vs Lavasa Corp Ltd case in 2021, the NCLT combined the insolvency proceedings of the Lavasa group to avoid losses that could result from fragmented resolutions. The tribunal also recognised that the financial health of the subsidiaries was closely tied to the outcome of the parent company's insolvency. What does the Bill state regarding cross-border insolvency? Essentially, when an insolvent company has credit and/or debtors in more than one jurisdiction i.e. in many different countries, that situation can be referred to as 'cross border insolvency' or 'international insolvency'. The Bill proposed a basic structure, for which the rules will be detailed later. The purpose of such insolvency is to enable lenders to manage the assets of financially distressed companies beyond specific geographies. This would ensure that India, with the help of other countries, gets access to bring overseas assets of the debtor within the ambit of insolvency. What is the creditor-initiated insolvency process and why is it important? The creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process allows lenders to settle insolvency proceedings out of court, wherein they only have to obtain regulator approval for the resolution plan from the NCLT. The concept of CIIRP gains importance as it puts the creditors on an important pedestal in the resolution process. 'Creditors can initiate the process without the court's intervention. CIIRP gives additional comfort to the promoters to make genuine efforts to revive the company without losing control since the promoters continue to run the company," said Siddharth Srivasata, Partner Khaitan & Co. He added that NCLT has the power to convert the CIIRP to a regular insolvency proceedings in certain situations, for example if the corporate debtor has failed to assist the resolution professional or no resolution plan is approved by the lenders. "In my view, CIIRP is likely to find more traction as compared to pre-packaged insolvency and therefore is a major step in rebuilding the confidence of stakeholders in the IBC." The pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (PPIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, provides a streamlined framework for resolving insolvency, particularly for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). These entities frequently struggle with financial pressures stemming from market volatility, limited capital, and operational hurdles. PPIRP provides a quicker and more affordable route for insolvent MSMEs. Designed as a promoter in a control framework, it enables MSMEs to restructure their debts while continuing to manage their operations, delivering faster outcomes than conventional insolvency proceedings. Why is the withdrawal of insolvency applications under Section 12A of the IBC expected to become challenging under the new amendment? Section 12A of IBC allows the withdrawal of an insolvency application against a debt-laden company only with the approval of 90% of the voting share of the committee of creditors. This threshold is often hard to achieve since inter-creditor conflicts arise, making the withdrawal process difficult. When the new amendments are implemented, the withdrawal may become even more complex because it will not be allowed after the formation of the committee of creditors
New Indian Express
7 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Two-year reprieve for Gujarat cooperative bank directors sparks political row
AHMEDABAD: A key amendment to Section 10A(2a)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, has extended the maximum continuous tenure of directors in cooperative banks, excluding chairpersons and whole-time directors, from eight to ten years, effective 1 August 2025. Rajya Sabha data reveals that, in Gujarat alone, 169 directors of District Central and State Cooperative Banks have already crossed the eight-year mark, along with 876 directors in Urban Cooperative Banks. The change effectively gives these long-serving board members a two-year extension to retain their seats. Rajya Sabha MP Shakti Sinh Gohil opened the attack by invoking the Banking Regulation Act's earlier provision that barred directors from serving more than eight consecutive years. He pressed the government for specifics, how many cooperative banks in Gujarat were allegedly flouting this limit, how many directors were involved, and where they were posted. The Finance Ministry's reply revealed a legislative twist that instantly altered the debate. It confirmed that Section 10A(2a)(i) of the Act has recently been amended to extend the maximum continuous tenure for cooperative bank directors, excluding chairpersons and whole-time directors, from eight to ten years. The amendment will take effect on 1 August 2025, effectively giving overstay directors a two-year reprieve.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business Standard
Overlapping concerns, multi-sector impact delaying data protection law
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act has been delayed due to non-release of administrative rules; govt may undertake another round of inter-ministerial consultations to weed out any errors Aashish Aryan New Delhi In a recent report, the 25th Standing Committee on Finance asked the Competition Commission of India (CCI) whether it was feasible to integrate the provisions of the proposed Digital Competition Bill (DCB) with those of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which was ratified as a law in August 2022. The CCI maintained that, despite the similar nature of regulations under both, the anti-trust law framework was an essential regulatory tool to address the exploitative and exclusionary behaviour arising from data accumulation by entities with market power. The DPDP Act, which was ratified as a law in 2023, also
