&w=3840&q=100)
Prime Offices Fund acquires Delhi's Prius Platinum in strategic realty move
Prime Offices Fund (PRIME) — a commercial real estate fund managed by Nuvama and Cushman & Wakefield (NCW) — has acquired Prius Platinum, a premium Grade A office space in South Delhi's high-demand Saket District Centre.
The deal comes at a time when India's commercial property sector is gaining attention from both institutional and retail investors for its potential to offer stable, inflation-hedged rental income, especially from marquee properties with long-term tenants.
What's the deal?
Prius Platinum spans 0.3 million sq. ft. and was previously owned by a consortium led by Kotak Alternate Asset Managers Limited.
The property was originally acquired via the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) route in 2021 and has since undergone extensive upgrades, including ESG initiatives, modernisation, and a leasing push.
The building is now 95% leased, with a weighted average lease expiry (WALE) of 5 years — a metric that provides comfort to long-term investors seeking predictable income flows.
Why this matters for investors?
According to Gaurav Puri, Chief Investment Officer at NCW, Prius Platinum fits perfectly into PRIME's vision of creating a sustainable, high-quality, income-generating portfolio. With tenants from legal, pharma, and financial services sectors, the property is positioned to deliver consistent rental yields.
From a personal finance perspective, investments in such commercial office spaces — either directly (for high-net-worth individuals) or indirectly via managed funds like PRIME — are becoming a popular hedge against equity market volatility and low-interest fixed deposits.
This move also reflects a broader trend of "value creation through transformation" — where distressed or under-utilised assets are revamped to create premium, ESG-compliant commercial hubs.
Rahul Chhaparwal, Partner at Kotak Alternate Asset Managers, called the transaction a "testament" to the firm's ability to turn around distressed assets and extract long-term value. He added that the complete revival of Prius Platinum highlights Kotak's sustainability-led asset management strategy.
NCW (Nuvama-Cushman JV): A 50:50 joint venture between Nuvama Asset Management (the alternative investment arm of Nuvama Wealth Management Ltd) and Cushman & Wakefield, a global real estate services firm. Their Prime Offices Fund received Sebi approval in 2024 and had its first close in 2025. It targets high-growth office spaces across India.
Kotak Alternate Asset Managers Limited: A part of the Kotak Mahindra Group, Kotak Alt has managed over $22 billion across private equity, real estate, infrastructure, and credit. Their real estate vertical focuses on value investing and revival strategies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Bankruptcy court admits insolvency resolution plea against Reliance Infrastructure
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted Anil Ambani-promoted Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. under the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and has appointed Tehseen Fatima Khatri as the interim resolution professional (IRP).The development followed an application filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd on behalf of the operational creditors. The trustee company had approached the tribunal after the company defaulted on its dues of more than Rs 88 response to ET's queries, Reliance Infrastructure said there is no impact or bearing of the NCLT order on the company or any of its subsidiaries.'The company has made full payment of Rs 92.68 crore to Dhursar Solar Power Private Limited, towards the claim of tariff as per the energy purchase agreement with the company. Accordingly, the company preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble NCLAT and will seek withdrawal of the order dated May 30, 2025, passed by NCLT Mumbai in case no. C.P. (IB) 642/MB/2022, for corporate insolvency resolution process and appointment of the interim resolution professional,' a Reliance Infrastructure spokesperson said, adding that the NCLT order has become infructuous, as legally advised, upon full payment having already been its order of May 30, the division bench of judicial member KR Saji Kumar and technical member Sanjiv Dutt said, 'We come to a definite conclusion that the operational creditor (IDBI Trusteeship) has become successful in establishing operational debt due and payable against the CD (corporate debtor) and that the CD (Reliance Infrastructure) is in default.'The genesis of the dispute lies in the energy purchase agreement (EPA) of 2011, between Reliance Infrastructure and Dhursar Solar Power Pvt Ltd (DSPPL). Under the agreement, the Anil Ambani-promoted company agreed to purchase all the solar energy generated from the solar power plant of in 2012, IDBI Trusteeship Services entered into a direct agreement (DA) with Reliance Infrastructure and DSPPL. As per the terms of the agreement, all the claims of the DSPPL were assigned to the IDBI per the agreement, DSPPL supplied solar energy to Reliance Infrastructure and raised 10 invoices for this during 2017 and counsel Gaurav Joshi and Animesh Bisht of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, appearing for the IDBI Trusteeship, submitted that on account of Reliance Infrastructure's failure in making payments to the trustee company despite repeated requests, the trustee issued a demand notice in April 2022 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, seeking payment of more than Rs 88 crore along with this, senior advocate Prateek Seksaria, appearing for Reliance Infrastructure, argued that the main application filed by the creditor was time-barred by limitation since the last invoice was issued in September 2018 and was due and payable in November 2018, while the main application was filed in April Infrastructure also argued that the main application against the company was not maintainable on account of a pre-existing dispute with on the date of admission of the company, Reliance Infrastructure, through senior counsel Ashish S. Kamat, requested to stay the order of admission of CIRP and also sought to direct the resolution professional not to take charge of the tribunal, however, rejected the request with the observation that it did not have any power to stay the CIRP against the company after passing an admission order.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
NCLAT upholds insolvency order against Jaypee Cement, dismisses appeal
The insolvency appellate tribunal has affirmed the insolvency process against Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited (JCCL), upholding an earlier ruling by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). A two-member panel of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed an appeal filed by Alok Gaur, stating that the debt and default issues had been established and that it found no fault in the NCLT's order to initiate insolvency proceedings. Gaur argued that Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), the parent company of Jaypee Cement, had entered into a Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) with lenders and had committed to settling its debts. However, the NCLAT noted that since all debt obligations had been transferred to JAL, which is now undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to its failure to honour the MRA, the liabilities of both JAL and JCCL could be considered for resolution. The NCLAT dismissed this argument, asserting that the debt originally owed by JCCL to its lenders remains valid. It added that the mere fact that JAL had assumed responsibility for JCCL's liabilities did not prevent lenders from initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the failure of the restructuring plan. The appellate body clarified that the commencement of CIRP proceedings against JAL does not preclude initiating similar proceedings against JCCL. 'The submission of the appellant that JAL having undertaken the liability to clear the debts and defaults of JCCL, hence, JCCL has no liability and no application was maintainable against JCCL, also does not commend us,' remarked the NCLAT bench, led by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member Barun Mitra. 'JCCL has also given its securities for obtaining the various facilities from the State Bank of India between 2012 and 2015. The financial creditor can always invoke the securities given by JCCL to realise the debt,' it stated. It was also emphasised that the financial creditor has never reflected the transfer of JCCL's debt to JAL in its financial records, and even if JAL and JCCL have, in their statements, recorded the debt as settled, such treatment does not bind the financial creditors. Additionally, the NCLAT pointed out that JCCL was not a party to the MRA, which in any case was not implemented. 'We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority admitting Section 7 application,' the appellate tribunal concluded, thereby rejecting Gaur's appeal. Previously, on July 22, the Allahabad bench of the NCLT admitted a plea by State Bank of India (SBI), India's top public sector lender, which had provided credit facilities to Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited (JCCL) during 2012–2015. Both JAL and JCCL defaulted on their loan repayments, prompting lenders, including SBI, to consider a comprehensive Debt Realignment Plan for the combined debts of both companies. The MRA executed on October 31, 2017, divided the debt into three categories. In Bucket 1, the transfer of a major portion of JAL's cement business along with a debt of Rs 11,689 crore to UltraTech Cement was sanctioned. The remaining debts of JAL and JCCL were categorised into two further segments. Bucket 2A involved a sustainable debt of Rs 5,072 crore, intended to be retained within JAL's residual business and serviced through its operational cash flows. This category also included the shifting of JCCL's Shahabad Cement Plant exposure of Rs 778.10 crore to JAL. Bucket 2B comprised an unsustainable debt of Rs 13,590 crore, which was proposed to be transferred to a separate real estate special purpose vehicle for a period of 20 years, backed by land assets totalling 1,039 acres (already mortgaged to lenders) with an estimated value of Rs 14,156 crore. Jaiprakash Associates' CoC clears cash outflow for June quarter In May, the lenders of JAL gave the green light to a cash outflow plan of Rs 936.27 crore for the June quarter to ensure the company's operations remain stable. In a regulatory filing, JAL mentioned that its Committee of Creditors (CoC) had sanctioned 'the budgeted cash outflows of the corporate debtor for the period from 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025, of up to Rs 936.27 crore.' This sanctioned amount comprised Rs 856.73 crore designated for regular operational costs and Rs 79.54 crore allocated for one-time expenses.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
NCLT admits Reliance Infrastructure for insolvency resolution process
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has admitted insolvency plea against Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. In April 2022, IDBI Trusteeship had filed a petition for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Reliance Infrastructure, under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, alleging a default of ₹88.68 crore as on August 28, 2018 as well as interest at 1.25% a month from 30 days of the date of receipt of each invoice until the payment date. It was based on default in the payment of 10 invoices issued between 2017 and 2018 by Dhursar Solar Power Private Ltd. (DSPPL) for supplying solar energy to Reliance Infrastructure as per the energy purchase agreement in 2012. IDBI Trusteeship, being the security trustee of DSPPL, sought payments against the invoices from Reliance Infrastructure. In its order on May 30, NCLT said it was aware of the attempts of both the parties to amicably settle the matter. 'We provided sufficient opportunities for the same but the efforts did not yield any result and also noted that the pre-mediation process between the parties has not become successful,' it added. The NCLT said it has come to a definite conclusion that IDBI Trusteeship has become successful in establishing operational debt due and payable against Reliance Infrastructure and that the company is in default. It also appointed Tehseen Fatima Khatri as the interim resolution professional (IRP) of the company. The NCLT also declined the Reliance Infrastructure lawyer's request to stay the order of admission of CIRP and also to direct the IRP not to take charge of the company. 'We find that there is no provision in the IBC to stay an order of CIRP initiated in respect of the Corporate Debtor (CD). This Adjudicating Authority also has no power to direct an Interim Insolvency Professional appointed, not to take charge of its CD once CIRP is ordered,' it added.
