119

Liquidator declared a H-1 Bidder as Successful Bidder whereas SCC considered H-2 Bidder as a Successful Bidder in the private sale in liquidation process – Labhanshi Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amresh Shukla Liquidator, Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. – NCLT Indore Bench

In this case, Liquidator declared a H-1 Bidder as Successful Bidder whereas SCC considered H-2 Bidder as a Successful Bidder in the private sale in liquidation process.

Hon’ble NCLT Indore Bench observes that the liquidator has conducted the process in consultation with only one SCC member namely Canara Bank. The meetings were conducted by giving a very short notice to the other members. The result was that the other members could not take part into any of such meetings. Also, there are two mode of sales as provided in regulation 33 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations-(1) through an auction, (2) by means of private sale. The manner in which the liquidator is to conduct such sales are specified in schedule-I thereof. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 33 together with the method as provided in schedule-I clearly requires that the liquidator will have to ordinarily sale the assets of the corporate debtor through a public auction as specified in schedule-I.

Liquidator declared a H-1 Bidder as Successful Bidder whereas SCC considered H-2 Bidder as a Successful Bidder in the private sale in liquidation process – Labhanshi Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amresh Shukla Liquidator, Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. – NCLT Indore Bench Read Post »

Sales Tax Department cannot claim priority over the dues payable to Secured Creditor – Union Bank of India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors. – Bombay High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Sales Tax Department cannot claim priority over the dues payable to Secured Creditor – Union Bank of India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

In determining whether there is an arbitration agreement, the terms of the contract between the parties must be read as a whole | Conditions must be satisfied by a valid arbitration agreement – Solaris Chem Tech Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) The agreement must be in writing, as stipulated by sub-section (3) of Section 7;
(ii) Parties should have agreed to refer any disputes, present or future, between them to an arbitral tribunal;
(iii) The arbitral tribunal should be empowered to adjudicate upon the disputes in an impartial manner giving due opportunity to the parties; and
(iv) The parties should have agreed that the decision of the tribunal would be binding between them.
(v) The provision for settlement of disputes which is contained in Clause 11 does not constitute the Chief Engineer as an arbitral tribunal since he cannot be regarded as an impartial officer nor do the provisions of Clause 11 incorporate the trappings of an arbitral tribunal.

In determining whether there is an arbitration agreement, the terms of the contract between the parties must be read as a whole | Conditions must be satisfied by a valid arbitration agreement – Solaris Chem Tech Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top