05. May

Process of investigation cannot be used by the investigating agency to elicit confession from the accused | No accused can be called upon to make self-incriminating statements or give or furnish self-incriminating evidence – Shashi Prabha Jindal Vs. State – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicant observing that Applicant has joined investigation and there are no allegations that she has misused the liberty granted by the Court and/or tampered with evidence or threatened/intimidated any witness. It is also not the case of the State that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Opposition to the present application is primarily on the ground that applicant is denying the allegation of trespassing in the property in question after breaking the lock and the seal put by the Court Receiver pursuant to an order passed by the learned CMM in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Process of investigation cannot be used by the investigating agency to elicit confession from the accused | No accused can be called upon to make self-incriminating statements or give or furnish self-incriminating evidence – Shashi Prabha Jindal Vs. State – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Resolution Plan cannot and should not have adjudicated the claim on his own, instead of by NCLT – Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AVM Resolution Professional LLP – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

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

Resolution Plan cannot and should not have adjudicated the claim on his own, instead of by NCLT – Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AVM Resolution Professional LLP – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

If no invocation of Personal Guarantee which is mandatory to prefer the application under Section 94 of IBC, the application is not maintainable – Santosh Kumar Dhirajlal Pathak Vs. Technology Development Board and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that as there is no invocation of guarantee which is mandatory to prefer the application under Section 94 of IBC, the application is not maintainable.

Further, the Bench held that applicant produced additional document at much belated stage and that too after 2 years 4 months from the date of the filing of report of RP under Section 99 of IBC, 2016. For filing documents no permission of the tribunal was sought by the applicant. There is no pleading about these documents in the petition. Hence, this document cannot be relied upon at this stage while passing an order under Section 100 of IBC, 2016.

If no invocation of Personal Guarantee which is mandatory to prefer the application under Section 94 of IBC, the application is not maintainable – Santosh Kumar Dhirajlal Pathak Vs. Technology Development Board and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

If the parameters for sanctioning the scheme of Arrangement of Demerger are complete, then the NCLT would only have a Supervisory Jurisdiction – Oriental Carbon and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. OCCL Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

While sanctioning the scheme of arrangement if the Court comes to a conclusion that the provisions of statute have been complied with; and that there is no violation of any provision of law, or the proposed scheme of compromise or arrangement is not unquestionable, unconscionable or contrary to public policy, then the NCLT has no further jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the class of person who with their eyes open have given their approval, even if, the Court is of the view that better scheme could have been framed. Further we also agree the alterations in the appointed date would affect the calculation and would have a serious financial implication. Hence if the parameters for sanctioning the scheme are complete, then the Tribunal would only have a supervisory jurisdiction.

If the parameters for sanctioning the scheme of Arrangement of Demerger are complete, then the NCLT would only have a Supervisory Jurisdiction – Oriental Carbon and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. OCCL Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, may be granted under Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even after expiry of the mandate – Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court referring various judgment, held that in view of the fact that the expression used in Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is “prior to or after expiry of the period so specified”, this Court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after expiry of the mandate of the ld. Arbitral Tribunal.

Whether the extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, may be granted under Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even after expiry of the mandate – Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether if an action in rem against Vessel cannot be referred to arbitration, the same cannot be circumvented by merely invoking arbitration – OSV Crest Mercury 1 (IMO 9724398) Vs. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court

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

Whether if an action in rem against Vessel cannot be referred to arbitration, the same cannot be circumvented by merely invoking arbitration – OSV Crest Mercury 1 (IMO 9724398) Vs. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Once the reasons have been given and the Arbitrator has in his wisdom denied the pendente lite interest, the same is not open for review in a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Escorts Ltd. Vs. Bengal Tractors and Ors. – Delhi High Court

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

Once the reasons have been given and the Arbitrator has in his wisdom denied the pendente lite interest, the same is not open for review in a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Escorts Ltd. Vs. Bengal Tractors and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) can reject Resolution Plan only when it is in non-compliance of Section 30(2) of IBC – Sumeet Industries Ltd., Through its RP, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority can reject Resolution Plan only when it is in non-compliance of Section 30(2). From the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order, it is clear that apart from only bare observation that Plan does not confirm to Section 30(2), there are no reasons or material given as to how the plan can be said to be non-compliance of Section 30(2).

Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) can reject Resolution Plan only when it is in non-compliance of Section 30(2) of IBC – Sumeet Industries Ltd., Through its RP, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Even if no reply to Demand Notice was given, it would have not precluded Corporate debtor to bring immediately before Adjudicating Authority to establish a pre-existing dispute – Mr. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that if the dispute is raised by the CD and if the CD shows the disputed issues of facts which require adjudication by a competent court of law, then Section 9 of IBC would not empower the Adjudicating Authority to take upon itself the task of sifting through the rival contentions raised and to gave a judgement upon it. However, it has to determine whether there truly exist a dispute which may or may not ultimately succeed, but at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 9 IBC the jurisdiction is limited to consideration of existence of a dispute.

Even if no reply to Demand Notice was given, it would have not precluded Corporate debtor to bring immediately before Adjudicating Authority to establish a pre-existing dispute – Mr. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

While sanctioning the scheme of arrangement, NCLT has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the class of person who with their eyes open have given their approval, even if, the Court is of the view that better scheme could have been framed – Marathon Nextgen Townships Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Regional Director, Western Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that while sanctioning the scheme of arrangement if the Court comes to a conclusion that the provisions of statute have been complied with; and that there is no violation of any provision of law, or the proposed scheme of compromise or arrangement is not unquestionable, unconscionable or contrary to public policy, then the NCLT has no further jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the class of person who with their eyes open have given their approval, even if, the Court is of the view that better scheme could have been framed.

While sanctioning the scheme of arrangement, NCLT has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the class of person who with their eyes open have given their approval, even if, the Court is of the view that better scheme could have been framed – Marathon Nextgen Townships Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Regional Director, Western Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top