Hon’ble NCLAT held that: (i) A cursory perusal of Section 35 of the Code employs the word "shall" in Section 35(1) which indicates that the legislature has intended the powers and duties of the Liquidator to be mandatory in character. (ii) If a Liquidator has not acted in bona fide manner or that he acted in a way that no reasonable Liquidator could have acted, then, the Court can interfere. (iii) In Liquidation, an Asset for the aspect of Liquidation Estate is inclusive of any Asset that may be in Debtor’s possession i.e. (a) Actual and (b) Constructive Possession. (iv) As far as the present case is concerned, this Tribunal rightly points out that the premises / land in possession of the Appellant / Respondent / Company is the Asset of the Corporate Debtor which comes within the purview of Liquidation Estate as per Section 36 of the I & B Code, 2016. (v) The issue of addition of parties is one of judicial discretion to be exercised by a Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal based on the facts and circumstances of the case, which float on the surface.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Either type keywords in “Search here” bar or follow below instructions:
Bookmark IP Tool or remember this link: https://ibclaw.in/ibc-case-laws/ for future reference.
For YouTube Guide, Click here.
You feedback is highly appreciated and help us to motivate our team. Feedback here.
IBC Commentary Index(Clickable)
