2018

The handing over or showing any document to any party will not amount to violation of order of Moratorium – Mr. V. Nagarajan RP of M/s. Cethar Ltd. Vs. M/s. Meenakshi Energy Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 3 minutes of reading

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

The handing over or showing any document to any party will not amount to violation of order of Moratorium – Mr. V. Nagarajan RP of M/s. Cethar Ltd. Vs. M/s. Meenakshi Energy Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

When it is a question of merger and the provisions require and give discretion to the NCLT with regard to calling of meetings, it is a discretion to be exercised judiciously by NCLT – Mega Corporation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 8 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that Section 233 referred to initially by NCLT has a speedier process but if appellant keeping in view sub-section (14), preferred to resort to Section 232 the applicants cannot be faulted with. Only thing is that, then they have to go through the procedure as u/s 232 of the Act. Section 232 gives powers to NCLT to consider & decide calling of meeting of creditors etc. Appellant cannot claim “dispensing” meetings as a right. When it is a question of merger and the provisions require and give discretion to the NCLT with regard to calling of meetings, it is a discretion to be exercised judiciously by NCLT. NCLT is duty bound to follow procedure laid down by law. The NCLT recorded reasons why it finds that calling of the meetings is necessary and we do not find that the reasons recorded are arbitrary. The Law provides and the NCLT has exercised discretion that the meetings are required to be called. We do not wish to substitute our discretion over the discretion exercised by the NCLT. We do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is rejected. The appellant is given liberty to move NCLT to request resetting of the schedule and dates specified in the operative order as it appears that certain steps were to be taken on 29th January, 2018 and the said date has passed.

When it is a question of merger and the provisions require and give discretion to the NCLT with regard to calling of meetings, it is a discretion to be exercised judiciously by NCLT – Mega Corporation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority is also empowered to remove the Resolution Professional, apart from the Committee of Creditors, but it should be for the reasons & in the manner as provided under the relevant provisions – Mr. Devendra Padamchand Jain RP VNR Infrastructure Limited Vs. State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 16 minutes of reading

NCLAT highlights the provision of appointment and replacement of RP/Liquidator:

a) Interim resolution profession can be appointed as a resolution professional; [Refer sub-section (2) of Section 22]

b) The Committee of Creditors can replace the interim resolution professional by another resolution professional; [Refer sub-section (2) of Section 22]

c) The Committee of Creditors can replace resolution professional by requisite board if it is of opinion that the resolution professional appointed under section 22 is required to be replaced is to be made in the manner as prescribed under Section 27; [ Refer: Section 27]

d) The Adjudicating Authority is also empowered to replace resolution professional in case the resolution plan submitted under Section 13 is rejected for failure to meet the requirement mentioned sub-section (2) of Section 30. [ Refer : sub-section (4) of Section 34]

e) Normally the resolution professional appointed is to act as liquidator for the purpose of liquidation unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 34. [Refer : sub-section (1) of Section 34]

and held that the Adjudicating Authority is also empowered to remove the resolution professional, apart from the Committee of Creditors, but it should be for the reasons and in the manner as provided under the relevant provisions

Adjudicating Authority is also empowered to remove the Resolution Professional, apart from the Committee of Creditors, but it should be for the reasons & in the manner as provided under the relevant provisions – Mr. Devendra Padamchand Jain RP VNR Infrastructure Limited Vs. State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The action of a Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act available to challenge by the aggrieved u/s 17 was an efficacious remedy and the institution directly under Article 226 was not sustainable – Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. – Supreme Court

/ 17 minutes of reading

The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference.

The action of a Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act available to challenge by the aggrieved u/s 17 was an efficacious remedy and the institution directly under Article 226 was not sustainable – Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. – Supreme Court Read Post »

The arbitral proceeding pending between Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor before the Indian Council of Arbitration cannot proceed during the moratorium period – K. S. Oils Ltd. Vs. The State Trade Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.-NCLAT

/ 7 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that:

The Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Indian Council of Arbitration
The IBC Code will prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The arbitral proceeding pending between Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor before the Indian Council of Arbitration cannot proceed during the moratorium period.

The arbitral proceeding pending between Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor before the Indian Council of Arbitration cannot proceed during the moratorium period – K. S. Oils Ltd. Vs. The State Trade Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.-NCLAT Read Post »

The High Court is requested not to enter into the debate pertaining to the validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or the constitutional validity of the NCLT- Shivam Water Treaters (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI & Ors.- Supreme Court

/ 2 minutes of reading

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

The High Court is requested not to enter into the debate pertaining to the validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or the constitutional validity of the NCLT- Shivam Water Treaters (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI & Ors.- Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top