269

As per Section 19(3A) of Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), an application for recovery of the amount due on a mortgage can be entertained by the DRT – State Bank of India Vs. Sampat Parasram Rathod and Anr. – DRAT Mumbai

The definition of debt under Sec. 2 (g) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) indicates that it would include a debt under a mortgage which is illegally recoverable on the date of the application. Sec. 1 (4) specifies that the provisions of the RDB Act apply to a debt due to any bank or financial institution and is not less than Rs. 20 lakhs. It is therefore fallacious to hold that a debt due on a mortgage is not recoverable by applying to the D.R.T. A reading of Sec. 19(3A) would make it further clear that an application for recovery of the amount due on a mortgage can be entertained by the D.R.T.

As per Section 19(3A) of Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), an application for recovery of the amount due on a mortgage can be entertained by the DRT – State Bank of India Vs. Sampat Parasram Rathod and Anr. – DRAT Mumbai Read Post »

Whether an award delivered by an Emergency Arbitrator under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre can be said to be an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC Vs. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court

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

Whether an award delivered by an Emergency Arbitrator under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre can be said to be an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC Vs. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

The date of default cannot be changed by Bank and the date of NPA cannot be taken to be the date of default for the purpose of period of limitation for filing CIRP application under IBC – Ramdas Dutta Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that (i) on the issue whether the date of default can be changed by the Bank?, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kymal (2021) ibclaw.in 08 SC that the date of default cannot be changed. It has also been held in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana (2021) ibclaw.in 53 SC, Babulal Vardharji Gurjar [2020] ibclaw.in 16 SC, B.K Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. [2018] ibclaw.in 32 SC and Jignesh Shah [2019] ibclaw.in 19 SC that the period of limitation would be attracted from the date when the default occurs and not from the date of declaration of NPA. Therefore, the date of NPA cannot be taken to be the date of default for the purpose of limitation.
(ii) It has now been well settled by three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (2019) ibclaw.in 201 SC, that Section 19 would come into play if the payment is acknowledged in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by the person making the payment.
(iii) As regards the OTS, it has come on record that the OTS has occurred much after the expiry of period of limitation, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 18 to extend the period of limitation.

The date of default cannot be changed by Bank and the date of NPA cannot be taken to be the date of default for the purpose of period of limitation for filing CIRP application under IBC – Ramdas Dutta Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Extension of CIRP time on request by proposed Resolution Applicant on due diligence ground – Indian Overseas Bank Vs. AMW Motors Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

Application filed by the proposed Resolution Applicant-Tube Investments of India Limited seeking further six weeks time to submit the Resolution Plan. The present Applicant mentioning difficulty faced during this period and justifying the inability to submit the Resolution Plan seeks further time to submit the Resolution Plan. The CoC was of the view that since 330 days have expired in September 2021, the process is to be completed at the earliest. Learned Counsel for the RP further states that Resolution Plan of another Proposed Applicant is already received and the same is being considered by CoC. Considering the decision of CoC the Adjudicating Authority allows the present Applicant to submit the Plan on or before 21.03.2022 till 6:00 PM.

Extension of CIRP time on request by proposed Resolution Applicant on due diligence ground – Indian Overseas Bank Vs. AMW Motors Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top