111

If required, Supreme Court can take assistance from Resolution Professional(RP), in case an appeal(s) is preferred by CoC/third party. RP should not have filed appeals and should have maintained a neutral stand, it is for the aggrieved parties/CoC to take appropriate proceedings or file an appeal before Supreme Court – Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Giriraj Enterprises & Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal field by Resolution Professional against the NCLAT order in Giriraj Enterprises Vs. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 569 NCLAT and has held that the Resolution Professional should not have filed the present appeals. The Resolution Professional should have maintained a neutral stand. It is for the aggrieved parties, including the Committee of Creditors of Regen Powertech Private Limited (RPPL) and Regen Infrastructure and Services Private Limited (RISPL), to take appropriate proceedings or file an appeal before this Court. Recording the aforesaid, the present appeals preferred by the Resolution Professional are dismissed as not entertained. If required and necessary, the Court can take assistance and ascertain the facts from the Resolution Professional, in case an appeal(s) is preferred by the Committee of Creditors or a third party.

If required, Supreme Court can take assistance from Resolution Professional(RP), in case an appeal(s) is preferred by CoC/third party. RP should not have filed appeals and should have maintained a neutral stand, it is for the aggrieved parties/CoC to take appropriate proceedings or file an appeal before Supreme Court – Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Giriraj Enterprises & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

A party who was not the supplier as per the definition contained in Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the date of entering into contract cannot seek any benefit as the supplier under the MSMED Act, 2006 – Gujarat Green Revolution Company Ltd. Vs. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & 1 Other(s) – Gujarat High Court

In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings before the MSME Council are without jurisdiction because the registration by respondent No. 2 as a supplier was in the year 2018, post the awarding and completion of the contract. Hon’ble High Court referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 131 SC and held that special note needs to be taken care of paragraph No.34(vi) of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which indicates that a party who was not the `supplier’ as per the definition contained in Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the date of entering into contract cannot seek any benefit as the `supplier’ under the MSMED Act, 2006. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed

A party who was not the supplier as per the definition contained in Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the date of entering into contract cannot seek any benefit as the supplier under the MSMED Act, 2006 – Gujarat Green Revolution Company Ltd. Vs. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & 1 Other(s) – Gujarat High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top