128

The ingredients of preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transaction (PUFE) are entirely different and there has to be application of mind to the ingredients of each transaction to come to conclusion that ingredients are satisfied and the transaction falls in the said category adverting to the given pleadings in the application – Md Sadique Islam and Ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Agarwal and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority has recorded only its conclusions and that too without considering the preferential, undervalued and fraudulent, each transaction separately and there is general observation that the transactions are undervalued transactions as well as preferential and fraudulent transactions. The ingredients of preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transaction are entirely different and there has to be application of mind to the ingredients of each transaction to come to conclusion that ingredients are satisfied and the transaction falls in the said category adverting to the given pleadings in the application.

The ingredients of preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transaction (PUFE) are entirely different and there has to be application of mind to the ingredients of each transaction to come to conclusion that ingredients are satisfied and the transaction falls in the said category adverting to the given pleadings in the application – Md Sadique Islam and Ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Agarwal and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties under the Arbitration Act, 1940 after the said act was repealed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is valid and binding on the parties – ICDS Ltd. Vs. Sri Bhaskaran Pillai and Ors. – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court refers judgment in Purushottam s/o Tulsiram Badwaik Vs. Anil & Ors. (2018) ibclaw.in 137 SC and holds that it is very clear that, even when the proceedings had commenced under 1940 Act, the subsequent commencement of arbitral proceedings had to be in terms of the 1996 Act. Hence, it is clear that, if any proceedings had to be initiated, the same shall be in terms of the 1996 Act. If there be such an arbitration agreement which satisfies the requirements of Section 7 of the 1996 Act, and if no arbitral proceeding had commenced before the 1996 Act came into force, the matter would be completely governed by the provisions of the 1996 Act. Any reference to the 1940 Act in the arbitration agreement would be of no consequence and the matter would be referred to arbitration only in terms of the 1996 Act consistent with the basic intent of the parties and discernible from the arbitration agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration.

Whether Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties under the Arbitration Act, 1940 after the said act was repealed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is valid and binding on the parties – ICDS Ltd. Vs. Sri Bhaskaran Pillai and Ors. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit under Section 4 of IBC – Wam India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SN Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Adjudicating Authority found that in case of M/s. A2 Interiors Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 214 NCLT, the Principal Bench had allowed the petition holding that debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit. On perusal of the documents submitted by the Applicant, it is clear that financial debt amounting to more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant. There is default by the Corporate Debtor in payment of debt amount. Therefore, we find that it is a fit case for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, and that the petition is filed within the limitation period. This Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Company Petition filed by the Operational Creditor and that there is a Debt due & payable by the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the Application filed by the Operational Creditor is liable to be admitted.

Debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit under Section 4 of IBC – Wam India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SN Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Once a decision is made in application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Court has no power to remit the arbitration matter to the Arbitrator – M/s. Sri Rama Constructions Vs. M/s. Max Infra (I) Ltd. – Telangana High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that though Court below may not be right in the reason for not remitting the matter to the Arbitrator, but once a decision is made in Section 34 application, the Court has no power to remit the arbitration matter to the Arbitrator. As per Section 34(4) of the Act, 1996, if the Court deems it appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings in the case to give Arbitral Tribunal opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of Arbitral Tribunal would eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. Even this course is available only upon a written application made by a party and not suo-moto. Thus, after a decision is made issue of remitting to the Arbitrator does not arise. Only course available to the Court in the application under Section 34 is to set aside or to uphold the award.

Once a decision is made in application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Court has no power to remit the arbitration matter to the Arbitrator – M/s. Sri Rama Constructions Vs. M/s. Max Infra (I) Ltd. – Telangana High Court Read Post »

CIRP application under Section 9 of IBC is not maintainable in case of principal amount has entirely been paid during the pendency of the application and the issue is only regarding to interest outstanding – Rohit Motawat Vs. Madhu Sharma Proprietor Hind Chem Corporation & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

An application filed by Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC for default of Rs. 15,10,151/- (Principal amount Rs. 9,97,122 and Interest amount Rs. 5,13,029) has been admitted by Adjudicating Authority and CIRP against Shubh Aluminium Pvt. Ltd.(Corporate Debtor) has been initiated. During the pendency of this proceedings, the principal amount of Rs. 9,97,122/- was paid by the Appellant by way of Cheque and Demand Draft dated 06.01.2021.

CIRP application under Section 9 of IBC is not maintainable in case of principal amount has entirely been paid during the pendency of the application and the issue is only regarding to interest outstanding – Rohit Motawat Vs. Madhu Sharma Proprietor Hind Chem Corporation & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors. – Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the instant case, although the borrowers initially approached the DRT by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre¬-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that we deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre¬-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the Act 2002.

Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top