Chalasani Udaya Shankar and Ors. Vs. Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. IIFL Home Finance Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Hon’ble NCLT Allahabad Bench observes that CoC is solely formed by the Unsecured Financial Creditor, who is also the Successful Resolution Applicant.
Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in the matter of approval of resolution plan should be regarded. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the financial creditor who is member of CoC itself is the SRA as well, we therefore, find it justifiable in passing such directions to the SRA to consider matching the total plan value at par with the liquidation value with corresponding pro-rata rise in the amount of disbursement.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
NCLAT held that the liquidation value fixed by the Valuers cannot be ignored in the resolution process. It is true that CoC on any valid reason can take a call to ask for any fresh valuation due to any relevant circumstances, but the valuation done by the Registered Valuers and average of liquidation value taken up by the Valuers serves the specific purpose and cannot be allowed to be disregarded by the CoC. In event, it is accepted that the CoC can change the liquidation value on its own, that may lead to unsatisfactory results. We, thus, are of the view that liquidation value found by the Registered Valuers cannot be allowed to be changed by the CoC.
In this case, this Forest land lease granted to Corporate Debtor was came to an end. The Company applies for renewal of lease during the pendency of insolvency proceedings. Meanwhile the Company requests the State to permit it to start the wind mill as the same would get damaged if it is not put into functioning and it is allowed subject to clearance of the Forest Department. In the proceedings on 07.05.2022, the State resolves to immediately suspend operations of the windmill till further orders and directed that documents be placed before Government for continuance of operation of the windmill.
NCLT directs the State Government to permit functioning of the windmill by holding that it was essential to resolve insolvency of the corporate debtor.
Hon’ble High Court held that the Company could not have knocked at the doors of the Tribunal as it completely falls beyond the purview of the Code, being in the realm of public law, since the State has exercised its jurisdiction in drawing up the proceedings and directing forest clearances to be submitted by the corporate debtor, the petitioner, in exercise of powers conferred under the statute. Therefore, they are in the realm of public law. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct functioning/continuing of the windmill without the forest clearances, merely because the State had granted such permission at an earlier point in time.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v. IIRF India Realty XII Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »
In this case, Petitioner-Bank challenges the order passed by State Government rejecting its claim for interest during period of liquidation of the society. It also challenges the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour sanctioning the amount of wages to 322 workers of the society. Both parties claim priority to receive the amount available with the official assignee.
The Hon’ble High Court held that having invoked the remedy under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 it would not be open to it to simultaneously buttress his claim under the Securitisation Act, 2002. There is a separate remedy created under the Securitisation Act for determining claims arising out of that Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed of the remedy under the Securitisation Act. Having taken recourse to the remedy under the Act of 1960 the petitioner cannot rely upon the provisions of the Securitisation Act. The liquidator or the State Government while deciding the claim of the petitioner under the provisions of Act of 1960 and the Rules of 1961 could not have taken into consideration the provisions of the Securitisation Act as they do not have any jurisdiction to do the same.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Kiran Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Samyak Metals Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »