07. July

The term “rules” in Section 15(2) obviously referred to the provision for appointment, contained in the arbitration agreement or any Rules of any Institution under which the disputes were referred to arbitration – Yashwith Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

The term “rules” in Section 15(2) obviously referred to the provision for appointment, contained in the arbitration agreement or any Rules of any Institution under which the disputes were referred to arbitration – Yashwith Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether a property(ies) which is/are not ‘owned’ by a Corporate Debtor shall come within the ambits of the Moratorium?- M/s. Schweitzer Systemtek India Private Limited Vs. Phoenix ARC Private Limited -NCLT Mumbai Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Whether a property(ies) which is/are not ‘owned’ by a Corporate Debtor shall come within the ambits of the Moratorium?- M/s. Schweitzer Systemtek India Private Limited Vs. Phoenix ARC Private Limited -NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Where the parties had agreed that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award interest – Union of India Vs. Bright Power Projects (I) P. Ltd. – Supreme Court

Section 31(7)(a) of the Act ought to have been read and interpreted by the Arbitral Tribunal before taking any decision with regard to awarding interest. The said Section, which has been reproduced hereinabove, gives more respect to the agreement entered into between the parties. If the parties to the agreement agree not to pay interest to each other, the Arbitral Tribunal has no right to award interest pendente lite.

Where the parties had agreed that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award interest – Union of India Vs. Bright Power Projects (I) P. Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has power to condone the delay in filing the appeal – A. R Venugopal @ R. Venugopal Vs. Jotheeswaran & Ors. – Supreme Court of India

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has power to condone the delay in filing the appeal – A. R Venugopal @ R. Venugopal Vs. Jotheeswaran & Ors. – Supreme Court of India Read Post »

The property not owned by the Corporate Debtor do not fall within the ambit of the Moratorium – Alpha & Omega Diagnostics (India) Ltd. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. & Ors – NCLAT

n the question is that whether a property(ies) which is/are not ‘owned’ by a Corporate Debtor shall come within the ambits of the Moratorium?, the NCLT held that “its” denotes the property owned by the Corporate Debtor. The property not owned by the Corporate Debtor do not fall within the ambits of the Moratorium. Even Section 10 is confined to the Book of the Accounts of the Corporate Debtor, due to the reason that Section 10(3) has specified that the Corporate Applicant shall furnish “its” Books of Accounts. This Bench has no legislative authority to expand the meaning of the term, “its” even under the umbrella of ‘Ejusdem generis’. The outcome of this discussion is that the Moratorium shall prohibit the action against the properties reflected in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor. The Moratorium has no application on the properties beyond the ownership of the Corporate Debtor. For the sake of completeness, it is worth to refer that the provisions of The SARFAESI Act may be having different criteria for enforcement of recovery of outstanding debt, which is not the subject matter of this Bench. Before I past with it is necessary to clarify my humble view that the SARFAESI Act may come within the ambits of Moratorium if an action is to foreclose or to recover or to create any interest in respect of the property belonged to or owned by a Corporate Debtor, otherwise not.

The property not owned by the Corporate Debtor do not fall within the ambit of the Moratorium – Alpha & Omega Diagnostics (India) Ltd. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. & Ors – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top