Kumar Jivanlal Patel (Makadia) Vs. Patel Oils & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Kumar Aditya Ranjan Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. – Patna High Court Read Post »
In this case, the applicant of the application under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 was not willing to sign Form ‘FA’ and that Form ‘FA’ has been signed by the Financial Creditor.
Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) From the plain reading of Section 12A it is clear that withdrawal of CIRP has to satisfy twin requirements of an application by the applicant which then needs approval of CoC by atleast 90% voting share. The word applicant is defined in Regulation 2(1)(a) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 as the person(s) filing an application under sections 7, 9 or 10, as the case may be.
(ii) The application for withdrawal as per the Regulation 30A read with Section 12A has to be necessarily made by the applicant who has initiated CIRP by filing application under Section 7, Section 9 or Section 10 of IBC, 2016.
(iii) The impugned order has recorded as under, which is not factually correct, as Form ‘FA’ was not signed or submitted by the Operational Creditor.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Anima Samanta Vs. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. and Ors. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Gagan Fibres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Innovative Textiles Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Satwinder Singh Vs. Sukhchain Singh – Punjab REAT Read Post »
Read here complete summary of the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 139 of NI Act.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
M/s. Fagioli India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. EDAC Engineering Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »
NCLAT held that when an insolvency resolution process commences against the Personal Guarantor all creditors of the Personal Guarantor are taken care of in the proceedings under Chapter-III. The scheme of Code does not contemplate manifold applications against same Personal Guarantor by different lenders. Multiplicity of applications against same Personal Guarantor is not contemplated under Chapter III. When the insolvency resolution process commences against a Personal Guarantor, claims of all creditors are taken care of under the scheme of the Code. Further, it is held that creditors of the Personal Guarantors who are unable to file an application due to enforcement of moratorium under Section 96 can very well avail the benefit of period during which moratorium continues, hence, due to interim moratorium enforced by Section 96, the creditors like Central Bank of India and other creditors are in no manner prejudiced. If they have not filed any application during moratorium period, they have every right to file application and for computation of the period of limitation, period during which moratorium is in place is to be excluded.
Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside NCLAT order and held that there cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the Appellant/applicant for the delay in taking steps. When an appeal is filed against an order rejecting an application on the ground of limitation, the onus is on the Appellant to make out sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application. The date of enforcement of the IBC and/or the date on which an application could have first been filed under the IBC are not relevant in computation of limitation. The pendency of the proceedings in a parallel forum, invoked by the Respondent, is not sufficient cause for the delay in filing an application under Section 9 of the IBC. Proceedings in good faith in a forum which lacks jurisdiction or is unable to entertain for like nature may save limitation. The initiation of proceedings in Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for initiation of CIRP in the NCLT under Section 7 of the IBC.