143

Wherever required the Resolution Applicant may approach/have all liberty to approach the concerned statutory/ competent authority for any concession, waiver or exemption as per prevailing law(s) of the land – Shri Bhupendra Singh Narayan Singh Rajput RP of Alps Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kanaiyalal Shukla & Ors – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

While approving Resolution Plan, NCLT mentioned that wherever required the Resolution Applicant may approach/have all liberty to approach the concerned statutory/ competent authority for any concession, waiver or exemption as per prevailing law(s) of the land. It is needless to mention herein that approval of the Resolution Plan does not mean automatic waiver or abatement of legal proceedings, if any, which are pending by or against the Company/ Corporate Debtor as those are the subject
matter of the concerned Competent Authorities having their proper/own jurisdiction to pass any appropriate order as the case may be.

Wherever required the Resolution Applicant may approach/have all liberty to approach the concerned statutory/ competent authority for any concession, waiver or exemption as per prevailing law(s) of the land – Shri Bhupendra Singh Narayan Singh Rajput RP of Alps Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kanaiyalal Shukla & Ors – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Whether date of default can be shift forward on the basis of the order passed by the DRT – B.S. Krishnan Vs. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 11 minutes of reading

The Corporate Debtor committed default and the loan account declared as NPA before 2001 and thereafter, there is no acknowledgement of debt within limitation of three years and it is clear that the Judgment/decree passed by the DRT-II on 29.04.2019 cannot shift forward the date of default for the purpose of computing the period for filing an Application under Section 7 of the I&B Code. Thus, NCLAT holds that the Application under Section 7 of the I&B Code filed by the Respondent No. 1 on 23.01.2019 against the M/s L.S.P. Agro Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) is barred by limitation and was not maintainable.

Whether date of default can be shift forward on the basis of the order passed by the DRT – B.S. Krishnan Vs. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The burden of proof to show that any review application pending before High Court is on the Corporate Debtor – M/s Ugro Capital Limited Vs. M/s Bangalore Dehydration and Drying Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (BDDE) – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 16 minutes of reading

It is important to point out that the definition of creditor provided in Sec 5(10) of the I&B Code provides that “Creditor means any person to whom a debt is owed and includes a financial creditor, an operational creditor, a secured creditor, an unsecured creditor and a decreeholder.” Based on the decree of the Court this petition was filed U/S 7 of the Code. Since the definition of word creditor in I&B Code includes decreeholder, therefore if a petition is filed for the realisation of decretal amount, then it cannot be dismissed on the ground that applicant should have taken steps for filing execution case in Civil Court.

The burden of proof to show that any review application pending before High Court is on the Corporate Debtor – M/s Ugro Capital Limited Vs. M/s Bangalore Dehydration and Drying Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (BDDE) – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If on receipt of the notice, Corporate Debtor has not raised any objection, nor there is anything on record to suggest a pre-existing dispute raised before issuance of Demand Notice u/s 8(1), it can’t be said that there was pre-existence dispute – Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. Vs. Earthcon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT

/ 3 minutes of reading

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

If on receipt of the notice, Corporate Debtor has not raised any objection, nor there is anything on record to suggest a pre-existing dispute raised before issuance of Demand Notice u/s 8(1), it can’t be said that there was pre-existence dispute – Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. Vs. Earthcon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top