0 comments on “NCLAT in the matter Sharad Gupta Vs. Mr. Tajas Jatin Parikh-IRP-NCLAT”

NCLAT in the matter Sharad Gupta Vs. Mr. Tajas Jatin Parikh-IRP-NCLAT

Case Reference Case Name : Sharad Gupta Vs. Mr. Tajas Jatin Parikh-IRP Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 207 of 2019 Appellant : Sharad Gupta Respondent : Mr. Tajas Jatin Parikh-IRP Order Date : 01-Mar-19 Court/Bench : NCLAT,…

0 comments on “Amending Sec. 5 (8) will not make substantial change in the main definition of Financial Debt as defined in Sec. 5(8) read with Sec. 5(7)-Paramjit Gandhi Vs. Amit Kumar Malik & Anr.-NCLAT”

Amending Sec. 5 (8) will not make substantial change in the main definition of Financial Debt as defined in Sec. 5(8) read with Sec. 5(7)-Paramjit Gandhi Vs. Amit Kumar Malik & Anr.-NCLAT

The Respondent- Mr. Amit Kumar Malik, an allottee of the Real Estate, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“I&B Code” for short) for initiation of the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against ‘M/s. Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd.’- (‘Corporate Debtor’). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, by impugned order dated 9th March, 2018 admitted the application which is under challenge.

0 comments on “If CoC approved the application u/s 12A with majority voting share of 90%, the NCLT cannot further look into the matter & is required to allow the applicant to withdraw the application, if it is filed-Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Redreef Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd.-NCLAT”

If CoC approved the application u/s 12A with majority voting share of 90%, the NCLT cannot further look into the matter & is required to allow the applicant to withdraw the application, if it is filed-Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Redreef Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd.-NCLAT

In case application under Section 12A is not approved by 90% of Committee of Creditors and the withdrawal of application under Section 7 is not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. If the Committee of Creditors approved the application under Section 12A with majority voting share of 90%, the Adjudicating Authority cannot further look into the matter and is required to allow the applicant to withdraw the application, if it is filed. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and liberty.

0 comments on “No discrimination can be made for withdrawal(Sec. 12A) of an application u/s 7 or 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date-Krishna Kumar Mintri Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sighania & Anr.-NCLAT”

No discrimination can be made for withdrawal(Sec. 12A) of an application u/s 7 or 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date-Krishna Kumar Mintri Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sighania & Anr.-NCLAT

From the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Brilliant Alloys Private Limited Vs. Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors.’, it is clear that Regulation 30A cannot override the substantive provision of Section 12A. The Regulation has to be read alongwith the provision in Section 12A, which contains no such stipulation. No discrimination can be made for withdrawal of an application under Section 7 or Section 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date. Such cutoff date has no nexus with the objective which is to be achieved.

0 comments on “Whether the RP has jurisdiction to reject the claim of Operational Creditors in its entirety, without going into the evidence-Mr. Navneet Kumar Gupta(RP of Monnet Power Company Ltd) Vs. BHEL-NCLAT”

Whether the RP has jurisdiction to reject the claim of Operational Creditors in its entirety, without going into the evidence-Mr. Navneet Kumar Gupta(RP of Monnet Power Company Ltd) Vs. BHEL-NCLAT

The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench held that the Resolution Professional wrongly disallowed the substantial claim in its entirety and directed the ‘Resolution Professional’ to re-examine the claim on the basis of the accounts and evidence of Operational Creditors and if the evidences corroborated the claim, the same should also be taken into account while finalising the total claim of Operational Creditors.

0 comments on “Rent payment issue in the matter of Sarla Tantia Vs. Ramaanil Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.”

Rent payment issue in the matter of Sarla Tantia Vs. Ramaanil Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

The Adjudicating Authority was not supposed to conduct a roving enquiry though it could have been within its rights to go for a limited exercise of sifting the material available before it for separating the grain from the chaff and to reject the spurious defense.

0 comments on “Liquidator on behalf of the company can move an application u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013-Rajesh Balasubramanian Vs. M/s. Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.-NCLAT”

Liquidator on behalf of the company can move an application u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013-Rajesh Balasubramanian Vs. M/s. Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.-NCLAT

If the members of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ or the ‘creditors’ approach the company through the liquidator for compromise or arrangement by making proposal of payment to all the creditor(s), the Liquidator on behalf of the company will move an application under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal.