No fresh Notice invoking Guarantee is required for filing Section 95 application under IBC – K.M. Sebastine (Kalarithara Michael Sebastine) Personal Guarantor of Schifflies India Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT observed that in the present case notice of demand was given on 26.08.2014 which has already been brought on record which notice was addressed to the appellant. The submission of the Appellant that after the said notice further fresh notices were required for filing Section 95 application does not appeal to us. When by the notice guarantee was invoked by the bank, bank was entitled to initiate proceedings and present is the case where bank is claiming extension of limitation under Section 18 thus we are not satisfied that invocation of guarantee was to be repeatedly done by the bank before filing the application under Section 95.

No fresh Notice invoking Guarantee is required for filing Section 95 application under IBC – K.M. Sebastine (Kalarithara Michael Sebastine) Personal Guarantor of Schifflies India Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The principal of quasi partnership can be invoked in family companies and also applicable to public listed companies – Mr. Virendra R. Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

This judgment covers:

A. Family Dispute Settlement, B. Quasi Partnership, C. Oppression and mismanagement, D. Legitimate Expectations and E. Tribunal’s powers to order division of assets in an oppression and mismanagement petition.

The principal of quasi partnership can be invoked in family companies and also applicable to public listed companies – Mr. Virendra R. Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Website Domain Name Dispute Resolution Mechanism through Arbitration under Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP)

Arbitration Process in case of Domain Name disputes The globally operating, domain name registration system is governed by Internet Corporation

Website Domain Name Dispute Resolution Mechanism through Arbitration under Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) Read Post »

Whether after full and final settlement, arbitration can be invoked? | Whether the issue as regards the validity of Accord and Satisfaction is to be determined by the referral court acting under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 or by Arbitral Tribunal – SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning – Supreme Court

In this important judgment covers following issues:

A. What is “accord and satisfaction” or “full and final settlement”
B. Presumption of Separability in arbitration agreement
C. Whether the “full and final settlement” of claims arising under a contract, is by itself sufficient to preclude any future arbitration in respect of such settled claims?
D. Whether the issue as regards the validity of the full and final settlement/accord and satisfaction is to be determined by the referral court acting under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 or by the Arbitral Tribunal
E. The dictum of law laid in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. NCC Ltd.
F. What is the effect of the decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1966 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899 on the scope of powers of the referral court under Section 11 of the Act, 1996?
G. Disputes pertaining to the “accord and satisfaction” of Claims
H. The principle of Subsequent Judicial Review
I. Clarifies the dictum laid in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd.

Whether after full and final settlement, arbitration can be invoked? | Whether the issue as regards the validity of Accord and Satisfaction is to be determined by the referral court acting under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 or by Arbitral Tribunal – SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning – Supreme Court Read Post »

Dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured – New Win Export and Anr. Vs. A. Subramaniam – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes all offences under NI Act compoundable offences. All the same, Section 320 (5) of CrPC provides that if compounding has to be done after conviction, then it can only be done with the leave of the Court where appeal against such conviction is pending.
The Hon’ble Court also held that it is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the ‘compensatory aspect’ of remedy shall have priority over the ‘punitive aspect’, courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so.

Dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured – New Win Export and Anr. Vs. A. Subramaniam – Supreme Court Read Post »

There is no provision under IBC or Regulations which empowers NCLT to grant post-facto approval the actions of Resolution Professional (RP) directly without prior approval of the CoC – Sai Ramesh Kanuparthy RP of Gayatri Projects Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

In this case, RP filed an application seeking post-facto approval for the payment of pre-CIRP dues, which were made to avoid work stoppage, termination of contracts, invocation of bank guarantees and to maintain the CD as a going concern.

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) There is no provision under IBC or regulations thereunder which empowers this Authority to ratify the actions of the RP directly without prior approval of the CoC and it is within the domain of the CoC to decide the costs incurred or payments made by the RP during CIRP to keep the CD as a going concern.
(ii) Any payments made by the RP to maintain the CD as a going concern shall be treated as CIRP costs and the same must be decided by the CoC.

There is no provision under IBC or Regulations which empowers NCLT to grant post-facto approval the actions of Resolution Professional (RP) directly without prior approval of the CoC – Sai Ramesh Kanuparthy RP of Gayatri Projects Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top