0 comments on “It is always open to AA to pass ad-interim order before admitting any application u/s 7 or 9 or 10, if it is necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal – NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Roxcel Trading GMBH – NCLAT”

It is always open to AA to pass ad-interim order before admitting any application u/s 7 or 9 or 10, if it is necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal – NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Roxcel Trading GMBH – NCLAT

NCLAT held that once an application under Sections 7 or 9 is filed by the Adjudicating Authority, it is not necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to await hearing of the parties for passing order of ‘Moratorium’ under Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’. To ensure that one or other party may not abuse the process of the Tribunal or for meeting the ends of justice, it is always open to the Tribunal to pass appropriate interim order.

0 comments on “Not taking a decision by the CoC without any reason will not become a reason for exclusion of the CIRP time period – First Step Ventures Ltd. Vs. Frontier Lifeline Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT”

Not taking a decision by the CoC without any reason will not become a reason for exclusion of the CIRP time period – First Step Ventures Ltd. Vs. Frontier Lifeline Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : First Step Ventures Ltd. Vs. Frontier Lifeline Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 720 of 2019 Appellant : First Step Ventures Ltd. Respondent : Frontier Lifeline Pvt. Ltd. &…

0 comments on “NCLAT has not allowed further extension beyond 270 days in the matter of – J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs. G. Madhusudhan Rao, R.P. of Bheema Cements Ltd. – NCLAT”

NCLAT has not allowed further extension beyond 270 days in the matter of – J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs. G. Madhusudhan Rao, R.P. of Bheema Cements Ltd. – NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs. G. Madhusudhan Rao, R.P. of Bheema Cements Ltd. Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 663 of 2019 Appellant : J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Respondent…

0 comments on “NCLAT in the matter of Kaushik Ghosh Vs. Noor Alam & Ors. – NCLAT”

NCLAT in the matter of Kaushik Ghosh Vs. Noor Alam & Ors. – NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : Kaushik Ghosh Vs. Noor Alam & Ors. Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 144 of 2019 Appellant : Kaushik Ghosh Respondent : Noor Alam & Ors. Order Date : 17-Jul-19 Court/Bench : NCLAT,…

0 comments on “No cost can be imposed on the ground that claim is filed late- ASREC (India) Ltd. Vs. Divyesh Desai – NCLAT”

No cost can be imposed on the ground that claim is filed late- ASREC (India) Ltd. Vs. Divyesh Desai – NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : ASREC (India) Ltd. Vs. Divyesh Desai Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 528 of 2019 Appellant : ASREC (India) Ltd. Respondent : Divyesh Desai Order Date : 17-Jul-19 Court/Bench : NCLAT, New Delhi…

0 comments on “NCLAT in the matter of Mr. Suresh Narayan Singh Vs. Tayo Rolls Limited – NCLAT”

NCLAT in the matter of Mr. Suresh Narayan Singh Vs. Tayo Rolls Limited – NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : Mr. Suresh Narayan Singh Vs. Tayo Rolls Limited Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 561 of 2019 Company Appeal Ref. : Arising out of Order dated 5th April, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating…

0 comments on “In absence of service of demand notice upon the Corporate Debtor whose existence at the given address itself is doubtful, Operational Creditor is not entitled to seek triggering of CIRP-M/s Krystal Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Indiaontime Express Private Limited-NCLAT”

In absence of service of demand notice upon the Corporate Debtor whose existence at the given address itself is doubtful, Operational Creditor is not entitled to seek triggering of CIRP-M/s Krystal Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Indiaontime Express Private Limited-NCLAT

Remedy provided to an Operational Creditor, therefore, was not available before the date of enforcement of the aforesaid provisions and CIRP in the instant case could be triggered only after 1st December, 2016. Viewed in that context the application for triggering of CIRP under Section 9 of the Code could not be held to be hit by law of limitation notwithstanding the fact that the instant case seeking winding up as one of the reliefs before the Hon’ble High Court stood transferred to the Adjudicating Authority which directed the Appellant to comply with the legal provisions under the Code for triggering of CIRP. NCLAT considered view that the application filed in Form 5 in compliance to the order of Adjudicating Authority seeking initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Code was not hit by limitation but the application was premature as the demand notice stated to have been sent on 11.10.2017 could not be served upon the Respondent and was received back with endorsement “Addressee Left”. Even the notice sent on alternate address was returned with endorsement “No Such Firm”. In absence of service of demand notice upon the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) whose existence at the given address itself was doubtful, the Appellant (Operational Creditor) was not entitled to seek triggering of CIRP. Once application in prescribed form was filed by the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority was empowered to reject the same for failure on the part of Operational Creditor to deliver demand notice to the Corporate Debtor.