171

IBC does not provide any leeway or scope to dissatisfied individual Homebuyers in a minority to override the commercial wisdom of the majority in the CoC – Mr. Girish Nalavade Vs. Bhrugesh Amin and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that it is settled law that once the CoC has approved the resolution plan by requisite majority and the same is in consonance with applicable provisions of law and nothing has come to light to show that the RP had committed any material irregularities in the conduct of the CIRP proceedings, the same cannot be a subject matter of judicial review and modification. In any case, quite apart from the fact that the resolution plan is already under implementation it has also not been controverted by the Appellant that all the 77 Homebuyers including the Appellant have accepted the offer of 100% of their principal amount from the SRA. That being the case, the Appellant being a dissatisfied Homebuyer in a hopelessly minority position, he has no option but to ‘sail along’ or ‘drag along’ with the overwhelming majority which has accepted the resolution plan in terms of the legal precepts articulated in the Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. v. NBCC (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 320 SC.

IBC does not provide any leeway or scope to dissatisfied individual Homebuyers in a minority to override the commercial wisdom of the majority in the CoC – Mr. Girish Nalavade Vs. Bhrugesh Amin and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Post facto approval under Section 33(5) of IBC against Section 7 CIRP proceedings initiated by Liquidator without prior approval of NCLT – Mr. Jigar Bhatt, Liquidator RMOL Engineering and Offshore Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

In terms of Section 33(5) of the IBC, 2016, no prior permission was taken from this Tribunal before initiation of Section 7 proceedings against the 5 entities (bond issuer).
In this IA, the liquidator seeks post facto approval for the institution and continuation of legal proceedings under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 against 5 bond issuer companies i.e. the liquidator seeks post facto approval of the action already initiated by the liquidator.

Post facto approval under Section 33(5) of IBC against Section 7 CIRP proceedings initiated by Liquidator without prior approval of NCLT – Mr. Jigar Bhatt, Liquidator RMOL Engineering and Offshore Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court, no restoration of CIRP is allowed on settlement failed – Gagan Deep Singh Dugal Vs. M/s Ninaniya Estates Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench

In this case, an application has been filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, to restore the captioned petition and revive the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on account of breach of the settlement arrived between the parties.
NCLT held that the Applicant himself has mentioned in the written arguments that more than 90% of the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor. IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court. The Corporate Debtor had paid a sum of Rs. 9,67,00,000/- which is 93.40% of the total outstanding liability. The law on the subject has been categorically laid down by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of SRLK Enterprises LLP Vs Jalan Transolutions (India) Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 189 NCLAT. Hence time and again it has been expressed and explained by the various Courts that the Provisions of IBC, 2016 are not for the recovery of money; but here the intent of the Applicant reveals that the Applicant invokes the provisions of IBC,2016 in order to enforce recovery against the Corporate Debtor; the same should not be allowed.

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court, no restoration of CIRP is allowed on settlement failed – Gagan Deep Singh Dugal Vs. M/s Ninaniya Estates Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench Read Post »

An order would to be said an award or interim award when it decides a substantive dispute which exists between the parties – Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Delhi High Court

It is reflecting that an order would to be said an award or interim award when it decides a substantive dispute which exists between the parties. It is essential before an order can be understood as an award that it answers the attributes of the decision on the merits of the dispute between the parties or accords in conclusively settling a dispute which pertains to core issue. Therefore, to qualify as an award it must be with respect to an issue which constitutes a vital aspect of the dispute. Accordingly, an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application for impleadment neither decides the substantive question of law nor touches upon the merits of the case. The impugned order, as such, has not travelled the distance to answer the attributes of determination of an issue.

An order would to be said an award or interim award when it decides a substantive dispute which exists between the parties – Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

No writ or mandamus can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the bank to grant benefit of OTS to the borrower – M/s Malhotra Clinics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy General Manager (Hqrs.), Punjab & Sind Bank – Himachal Pradesh High Court

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct parties to enter into an OTS to the advantage of the borrower without the borrower proving its bonafide. The Court held that that apart, no writ or mandamus can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the bank to grant benefit of OTS to the borrower.

No writ or mandamus can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the bank to grant benefit of OTS to the borrower – M/s Malhotra Clinics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy General Manager (Hqrs.), Punjab & Sind Bank – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top