241

Language of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has inherent restrictions – Shajas Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Moniveda Consultants LLP and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Language of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has inherent restrictions – Shajas Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Moniveda Consultants LLP and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether service of Demand Notice u/s 8 of IBC to official email id of Corporate Debtor available on MCA portal which is not the email address of Whole-Time Director/Key Managerial Personnel is valid or not? – DHL Supply Chain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II

In this case, the Respondent stated that the Demand Notice is not served upon the Corporate Debtor at the registered office by hand, registered post, or speed post with acknowledgment due or by electronic mail service to a whole-time director or designated partner or key managerial personnel. It is served via official email which is not the email address of a key managerial personnel.
The Adjudicating Authority held that no illegality or deficiency in the service of the Demand Notice, which has been duly served through the E-mail addressed to the Corporate Debtor with “Attention to its Managing Director”, who is a “Key Managerial Personnel” of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, we would like to proceed ahead in examining the application on its merits.

Whether service of Demand Notice u/s 8 of IBC to official email id of Corporate Debtor available on MCA portal which is not the email address of Whole-Time Director/Key Managerial Personnel is valid or not? – DHL Supply Chain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »

Who decides: correct amount of debt, at the time of CIRP admission by NCLT or to be subsequently looked into at the time of collation of the claims by Resolution Professional – Manmohan Gupta Vs. MDS Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this appeal which was filed against the order of Adjudicating Authority in which CIRP application u/s 9 of IBC has been admitted. Appellant contends that there was actually no debt amount. In the balance sheet of the Operational Creditor also no debt was shown. The amount which was claimed by the Operational Creditor was also not the correct amount.
NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Section 9 application on the basis of admission made by the Corporate Debtor for an amount of Rs.8,56,836/-. When the admitted amount is more than the threshold, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in admitting Section 9 application. The question as to what is correct amount of debt was the question which was to be subsequently looked into at the time of collation of the claims by the Resolution Professional and at the stage of admission of section 9 application it was not necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to express any opinion.

Who decides: correct amount of debt, at the time of CIRP admission by NCLT or to be subsequently looked into at the time of collation of the claims by Resolution Professional – Manmohan Gupta Vs. MDS Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority can issue direction to Resolution Professional to give copies of claims documents to the particular Financial Creditors – Acrow Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Present is the case where the Adjudicating Authority has directed for giving copies of the claims documents as required by the Applicants after inspection. NCLAT holds that there is no doubt that RP by himself cannot share the documents with any individual member of CoC unless the CoC takes a decision under Section 21(9) asking any documents from the Resolution Professional. The Order of the Adjudicating Authority for directing copies is case specific and based on the application in the present case filed by the Respondent Bank. The Resolution Professional is obliged to give such documents if any decision is taken under Section 21(9) of the Code by CoC. The direction of the Adjudicating Authority to give copies of claims documents to the particular Financial Creditors cannot be held to be not within domain of the Adjudicating Authority and in particular facts of the present case such power can very well be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority for supplying copies of the claims documents needs no interference in exercise of our appellate Jurisdiction.

Adjudicating Authority can issue direction to Resolution Professional to give copies of claims documents to the particular Financial Creditors – Acrow Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top