114

Adjudicating Authority, of its own accord, cannot make any modification to the resolution plan | An order approving the Resolution Plan can be set aside only if the Appellant is able to demonstrate its case falls within the grounds enumerated in Section 61(3) of the IBC – Pioneer Engineering Industries Vs. Anjali Capfin Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) The process of judicial review under Section 31 of the Code cannot be stretched to carry out quantitative analysis concerning a particular creditor.
(ii) An approved resolution plan can only be set aside when cogent grounds have been established in terms of Section 61(3) of the Code.
(iii) The dissenting financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor, does not have the requisite locus to challenge the Resolution Plan as duly approved by the members of the CoC.
(iv) It is a settled law the Adjudicating Authority cannot sit in appeal with respect to financial implications as considered by the CoC.

Adjudicating Authority, of its own accord, cannot make any modification to the resolution plan | An order approving the Resolution Plan can be set aside only if the Appellant is able to demonstrate its case falls within the grounds enumerated in Section 61(3) of the IBC – Pioneer Engineering Industries Vs. Anjali Capfin Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings – Ranga Raju Kosuri and Anr. Vs. Paradise Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

It is well established that under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings. This ensures majority rule while safeguarding minority rights, thus promoting accountability and fairness in corporate governance. Therefore, unless there is a clear violation of minority rights, the majority prevails.

Under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings – Ranga Raju Kosuri and Anr. Vs. Paradise Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

When Resolution Plan approved by CoC and pending before NCLT, without giving an opportunity to SRA, directions of NCLT to CoC to consider settlement proposal of Suspended Directors, cannot be sustained – One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) In the Application u/s 12A, which was filed by the Ex. Director, where a proposal was submitted for settlement, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have given an opportunity to SRA to submit a response to the Application.
(ii) Adjudicating Authority, ought to have allowed opportunity to SRA to respond to the Application, whose Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC and which is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. Without giving an opportunity to the Appellant, direction to the CoC to consider the Plan, cannot be sustained.
(iii) The Application for approval of Resolution Plan being pending consideration, it shall be open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider IA No.188 of 2024 along with its objection.

When Resolution Plan approved by CoC and pending before NCLT, without giving an opportunity to SRA, directions of NCLT to CoC to consider settlement proposal of Suspended Directors, cannot be sustained – One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

As per Section 141(1) of the NI Act, only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished – Siby Thomas Vs. Somany Ceramics Ltd. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password 12,000+ Judgments in Insolvency Law Reported by IBC Laws

As per Section 141(1) of the NI Act, only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished – Siby Thomas Vs. Somany Ceramics Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Login
Scroll to Top