0 comments on “AA should have allowed the intervening period i.e. the period when erstwhile RP stopped functioning till the subsequent RP took charge to place the application u/s 12A before the CoC-Daiyan Ahmed Azmi Vs. Rekha Kantilal Shah, Liquidator & Ors.-NCLAT”

AA should have allowed the intervening period i.e. the period when erstwhile RP stopped functioning till the subsequent RP took charge to place the application u/s 12A before the CoC-Daiyan Ahmed Azmi Vs. Rekha Kantilal Shah, Liquidator & Ors.-NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : Daiyan Ahmed Azmi Vs. Rekha Kantilal Shah, Liquidator & Ors. Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 271 of 2019 Appellant : Daiyan Ahmed Azmi Respondent : Rekha Kantilal Shah, Liquidator & Ors. Order…

0 comments on “NCLAT in the matter of M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. NCC Limited-NCLAT”

NCLAT in the matter of M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. NCC Limited-NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. NCC Limited Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 516 of 2019 Appellant : M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Respondent : M/s. NCC Limited Order…

0 comments on “Application u/s 10 can be rejected on the ground that the Corporate Debtor is earning sufficient income-Vyomit Shares Stock & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)-NCLAT”

Application u/s 10 can be rejected on the ground that the Corporate Debtor is earning sufficient income-Vyomit Shares Stock & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)-NCLAT

The ‘Corporate Applicant’ filed an application u/s 10 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (‘I&B’ Code), 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against it. The Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal (in short ‘NCLT’), Mumbai Bench by impugned order dated 12th February, 2019 rejected the application on the ground that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is earning sufficient income. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that there is no reason for the Appellant or the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to declare itself eligible for filing an application u/s 10 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (‘I&B’ Code), 2016

0 comments on “AA is not required to conduct a roving enquiry or examine the merits of dispute in a manner as if he were going to decide the issues on merit-Karpara Project Engineering Private Limite Vs. BGR Energy Systems Ltd.-NCLAT”

AA is not required to conduct a roving enquiry or examine the merits of dispute in a manner as if he were going to decide the issues on merit-Karpara Project Engineering Private Limite Vs. BGR Energy Systems Ltd.-NCLAT

The Adjudicating Authority is not required to conduct a roving enquiry or examine the merits of dispute in a manner as if he were going to decide the issues on merit. The Adjudicating Authority exercises a limited jurisdiction and cannot dwell upon the pros and cons of the claim or merits of dispute. The limited exercise required to be undertaken by the Adjudicating Authority extends only to sift the material for separating the grain from the chaff with a view to reject a palpably spurious defense. Likelihood of such defense succeeding or failing is not the concern of Adjudicating Authority. If the dispute exists in fact, is a pre-existing dispute and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the Adjudicating Authority must reject the application.

0 comments on “In terms of Clause 5(8) of IBC, if disbursement is made for consideration of time value of money, a person can claim to be a financial creditor with regard to amount paid-Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Rudra Buildwell Projects Private Ltd-NCLAT”

In terms of Clause 5(8) of IBC, if disbursement is made for consideration of time value of money, a person can claim to be a financial creditor with regard to amount paid-Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Rudra Buildwell Projects Private Ltd-NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Rudra Buildwell Projects Private Ltd Company Appeal : Company Appeal(At) (Insolvency) No.172 Of 2019 Company Appeal Ref. : Arising Out Of Judgement And Order Dated 30.11.2018 Passed By The Learned…

0 comments on “Property having mortgaged, claim is not barred by limitation as the period of limitation is 12 years with regard to mortgaged property-Babulal Vardhaji Gurjar Vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.-NCLAT”

Property having mortgaged, claim is not barred by limitation as the period of limitation is 12 years with regard to mortgaged property-Babulal Vardhaji Gurjar Vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.-NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : Babulal Vardhaji Gurjar Suspended Director of Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Interim Resolution Professional Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 549 of 2018 Company Appeal…