215

The mere fact that Financial Statement and OTS related documents were not referred to in the Section 7 application cannot disentitle Financial Creditor to bring on record the said documents when plea was raised in the Reply by Corporate Debtor that application is barred by time – Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. Vs. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that when the issue of limitation is raised, it is duty of the Court to decide the question of limitation even if no defence is raised and for deciding the question of limitation party are at liberty to file relevant documents. When the Corporate Debtor questioned the application as barred by time, it was open for the Financial Creditor to bring on record the relevant documents claiming acknowledgment of the Corporate Debtor. Appeal is dismissed.

The mere fact that Financial Statement and OTS related documents were not referred to in the Section 7 application cannot disentitle Financial Creditor to bring on record the said documents when plea was raised in the Reply by Corporate Debtor that application is barred by time – Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. Vs. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Central Bank of India Vs. Mrs. Sanjukta Vohra – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Adjudicating Authority observes that since the Application is incomplete we do not wish to call for the Resolution Professionals’ Report in this matter at this stage. In taking the decision we are also conscious of the fact that the Interim Moratorium in case of section 95 application kicks in from the date of the filing of the application. It should not appear that an incomplete application can also ensure that the interim moratorium should kick in from the date of filing, else wrong signals could be sent out to others.

Central Bank of India Vs. Mrs. Sanjukta Vohra – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

The Adjudicating Authority(NCLT) was fully competent to recall ex-parte order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 49(2) of NCLT Rules, 2016 – Hacxad Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Skootr Global Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The present is a case where Corporate Debtor was asking for recall of the order dated 8th February, 2019 and 10th April, 2019. Both the orders were passed ex-parte and no notices were served. The Adjudicating Authority committed error in holding that the Appellant was asking for review of the admission order. In the impugned judgment dated 30th November, 2021, learned Adjudicating Authority have relied on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Khan Enterprises vs. National Company Law Tribunal & Ors. for forming an opinion that Rule 11 of NCLT Rules cannot be used seeking recall/ review of the orders. We have noticed above that what Corporate Debtor was seeking, was to recall the ex-parte order, which power was specifically conferred on the Adjudicating Authority under Rule 49, sub-rule (2). When power is specifically conferred under the Rule, there was no question of exercising any review jurisdiction in the facts of the present case. The Adjudicating Authority was fully competent to recall ex-parte order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 49, sub-rule (2).

The Adjudicating Authority(NCLT) was fully competent to recall ex-parte order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 49(2) of NCLT Rules, 2016 – Hacxad Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Skootr Global Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top