Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanwariyaji Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Period of limitation and certified copy for filing of appeal before NCLAT under Section 61 of IBC – Chanderpati Vs. Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi
In this important judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT referred four judgments on condonation of period of limitation for filing appeal u/s 61 of IBC and summarised the law in the following points:
(i) the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of pronouncement of the order in the cases covered by the Code
(ii) It is mandatory to annex the certified copy of the impugned order with the memorandum of appeal
(iii) the Tribunal may exempt the parties from compliance with the procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice as reiterated in Rule 14
(iv) There is no automatic exemption where the litigants makes no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance.
(v) The Appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation.
(vi) It is not open to the person aggrieved under the Code to await the receipt of free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Act r/w Rule 50 and prevent limitation from running
(vii) Litigant has to file the appeal within 30 days which can be extended upto a period of 15 days on showing sufficient cause which cannot be condoned thereafter
(viii) Limitation cease to run from the date of -e-filing
(ix) In order to take advantage of Section 12(2) of the Act 1963, certified copy has to be applied during the currency of the period prescribed for filing an appeal.
An Operational Creditor cannot be directed to state on oath that there are no further facts or documents with respect to Insolvency Petition filed u/s 9 of IBC – CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SABIC Asia Pacific Pte.Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench
In this case, the applicant desires direction to be issued to Operational Creditor to file some documents and also confirms certain facts on oath in section 9 application.
Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad Bench holds that:
(i) The Operational Creditor cannot be directed to file documents and facts under oath. According to the Operational Creditor, it has already filed these documents in the main matter. The applicant also has all the documents which it has already produced.
(ii) Moreover, the Operational Creditor cannot be directed to state on oath that there are no further facts or documents with respect to this insurer.
(iii) If there is anything, the Operational Creditor will face the consequences for non-disclosure.
Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »
G. Sundaravadivelu Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. – Supreme Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
G. Sundaravadivelu Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »
In case of a consortium of Banks, lead Bank having majority voting share (more than 75%) cannot give its approval on behalf of another Bank for the settlement/withdrawal of CIRP proceedings and IBC overrides RBI’s guidelines – Narendra Jindal Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III
Following issues are involved in this case:
Issue 1 – Whether NCLT can issue a direction to one of the members of the consortium to give its approval to the withdrawal application, Form FA.
Issue 2 -Whether in case of a consortium of Banks, the Lead Bank having majority voting share can give its approval on behalf of another Bank even though the said Bank does not give its consent or reject the proposal of withdrawal of CIRP application.
Manikankana Saha Vs. Leela Devi Kasera – Calcutta High Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Manikankana Saha Vs. Leela Devi Kasera – Calcutta High Court Read Post »
Sanofi Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – NCLAT New Delhi
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Sanofi Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Landmark judgment on a civil suit filed by a Borrower against a Bank/Financial Institution in relation to the proceedings for recovery of debt by a Bank or Financial Institution under RDB Act 1993, Transfer of a suit from Civil Court to a DRT and Parallel Proceedings in DRT and Civil Court – Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. – Supreme Court
Landmark judgment on Provision of RDB Act and Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entrain a suit filed by Borrower against Bank/Financial Institutes, Transfer a suit from Civil Court to a DRT, consent is required for the transfer of a suit and Parallel Proceedings-No question of stay of DRT proceedings by way of a civil proceeding instituted before the Civil Court
Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has no power to restrain a person from travelling abroad in the absence of specific powers to that effect – Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta Vs. Bank of India – Bombay High Court
A division bench of the Hon’ble of Bombay High Court held that on careful consideration of the language of Sub Section 12, 13(A), 17 and 18 of Section 19, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is not conferred with specific power to restrain a person from leaving the country. In the absence of a specific provision conferred on the Debt Recovery Tribunal by statute, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to restrain a citizen from travelling abroad, particularly when the said right has been recognised as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the provisions under RDDBFI Act, 1993, as they stand, do not even impliedly confer such powers on the Debt Recovery Tribunal to restrain a person from travelling abroad. The order refusing permission to travel abroad has been made in contravention of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution and is violative of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21. The State has not made any law or provision in the said Act seeking to deprive or regulate the right of a person to travel abroad. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.