Pushkar Industrial Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd. – DRAT Mumbai
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
Pooja Mehra Vs. Nilesh Sharma RP for Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
PCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India – Delhi High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
The New Liquidator filed I.A. against the son of the deceased liquidator seeking direction to hand over all the documents/records pertaining to the corporate debtor. The Adjudicating Authority while passing the order has noticed the Reply given by the son of the Liquidator and in the replies, details of documents sought by the new Liquidator has been handed over to the present Liquidator.
NCLAT held that whatever the documents were asked for from the son of the deceased liquidator have been given in the Replies submitted by the son as has been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority, hence, no reason to find any fault with the order of the Adjudicating Authority disposing of the Application. It is always open for the present Liquidator to approach the ex-management of the Corporate Debtor for any documents as required and not received by the Liquidator. There is no personal liability of the son of the deceased Liquidator to supply documents as was claimed by the Liquidator which could not be located in the papers. Furthermore, whatever the documents were there with the son of the deceased liquidator has already been submitted.
Hon’ble High Court held that under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, an application for setting aside an award is required to be made within a period of three months from the date on which the party making such application had received arbitral award. By the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, on indicating sufficient cause for being prevented from making such application within a period of three months, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain such application within a further period of thirty days but not thereafter. Thus application under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 has to be made within a period of three months from receiving an arbitral award or within a further period of thirty days from the expiry of three months but not thereafter. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned District Judge has equated the period of three months with ninety days and has thereafter found that the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as filed on 30.06.2022 was beyond the period of one hundred and twenty days. Since Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 specifically prescribes the period of three months and not ninety days there would be no basis to hold that the application under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 read with the proviso has to be filed within one hundred and twenty days. Such application has to be filed within a period of three months and subject to indicating sufficient cause for not making such application within a period of three months but within a period of thirty days the same can be entertained.
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
A K Singh & Company Vs. RBT Exports Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-IV Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
K.S. Ranganatha Vs. Vittal Shetty – Supreme Court Read Post »