2017

Whether Supreme Court can entertain an application for making the award as Rule of the Court, even if it retains seisin over arbitral proceedings? – The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. – Supreme Court

/ 71 minutes of reading

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

Whether Supreme Court can entertain an application for making the award as Rule of the Court, even if it retains seisin over arbitral proceedings? – The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

A complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station against Resolution Professional would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI – M/s Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd Vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

NCLT held that if, there is any complaint against the Insolvency Professional then the IBBI is competent to constitute a disciplinary committee and have the same investigated from an Investigating Authority as per the provision of section 220 of the Code. If, after investigation IBBI finds that a criminal case has been made out against the Insolvency Resolution Professional then the IBBI has to file a complaint in respect of the offences committed by him. It is with the aforesaid object that protection to action taken by the IRP in good faith has been accorded by section 233 of the Code. There is also complete bar of trial of offences in the absence of filing of a complaint by the IBBI as is evident from a perusal of section 236(1)(2) of the code. Therefore, a complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI.

A complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station against Resolution Professional would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI – M/s Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd Vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date – Mr. Ajay Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India and State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 9 minutes of reading

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

It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date – Mr. Ajay Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India and State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground to reject an application under Section 10 of IBC, if otherwise it is complete in terms of IBC and IBC(Application to AA) Rules, 2016 including Form 6 therein – Leo Duct Engineers & Consultants Limited Vs. Canara Bank – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 10 minutes of reading

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

Initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground to reject an application under Section 10 of IBC, if otherwise it is complete in terms of IBC and IBC(Application to AA) Rules, 2016 including Form 6 therein – Leo Duct Engineers & Consultants Limited Vs. Canara Bank – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Moratorium would not apply to the proceedings which are in the benefit of the Corporate Debtor- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Jyoti Structures Ltd. – Delhi High Court

/ 15 minutes of reading

In the light of the purpose or object behind the moratorium, Section 14 of the Code would not apply to the proceedings which are in the benefit of the corporate debtor, like the one before this court in as much these proceedings are not a „debt recovery action‟ and its conclusion would not endanger, diminish, dissipate or impact the assets of the corporate debtor in any manner whatsoever and hence shall be in sync with the purpose of moratorium which includes keeping the corporate debtor‟s assets together during the insolvency resolution process and facilitating orderly completion of the process envisaged during the insolvency resolution process and ensuring the company may continue as a going concern. If such proceedings is against the corporate debtor or is in its favour. Stay of proceedings against an award in favour of the corporate debtor would rather be stalking the debtor‟s effort to recover its money and hence would not fall in the embargo of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Code.

Moratorium would not apply to the proceedings which are in the benefit of the Corporate Debtor- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Jyoti Structures Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top