278

Resolution Plan having been approved it is always open for SRA to make appropriate application before the Statutory Authority for grant of relief as permissible after approval of the Resolution Plan – Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. Vivek Raheja and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that SRA to file appropriate necessary application before the necessary Forum/Authority in order to avail the relief and the concession.
(ii) The Resolution Plan having been approved it is always open for the Applicant to make appropriate application before the Statutory Authority for grant of such relief as permissible after approval of the Resolution Plan.
(iii) It goes without saying that all past liabilities which are not dealt with in the Resolution Plan stands extinguished by view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. LTd. which is a well settled law.

Resolution Plan having been approved it is always open for SRA to make appropriate application before the Statutory Authority for grant of relief as permissible after approval of the Resolution Plan – Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. Vivek Raheja and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 74 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 has no application in the case of Auction conducted by the Liquidator under the IBC Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 and When the clauses of Tender document clearly empowers Liquidator to forfeit the EMD/any payment on default by the H1 Bidder, no exception can be taken to the action of the Liquidator in cancelling the sale and forfeiting the amount deposited by H1 Bidder – Westcoast Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ram Chandra Dallaram Choudhary, Liquidator of Anil Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this landmark judgment, NCLAT held that (i) It is also relevant to notice that Liquidator is statutorily entitled to fix the terms and conditions of sale. (ii) Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act has no application in the case of Auction conducted by the Liquidator under the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016. (iii) When the clauses of the Process Document as noted above, clearly empowers the Liquidator to forfeit the EMD and any payment made in event default is committed by the Highest Bidder, no exception can be taken to the action of the Liquidator in cancelling the sale and forfeiting the amount deposited by the Appellant.

Section 74 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 has no application in the case of Auction conducted by the Liquidator under the IBC Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 and When the clauses of Tender document clearly empowers Liquidator to forfeit the EMD/any payment on default by the H1 Bidder, no exception can be taken to the action of the Liquidator in cancelling the sale and forfeiting the amount deposited by H1 Bidder – Westcoast Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ram Chandra Dallaram Choudhary, Liquidator of Anil Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Timeline prescribed in CIRP Regulation 35A is only directory and the timeline prescribed for transactions under Section 46 does not cover the transactions covered by Section 49 and 66 of the Code – Aditya Kumar Tibrewal RP Vs. Om Prakash Pandey, Suspended Director – NCLAT New Delhi

Following are the questions which are arising for consideration in this Appeal:

i. Whether an Application by the Resolution Professional relating to a Transaction covered under Section 43, 45, 49 and 66 is mandatory to be filed within the period of 135th Day of the Insolvency Commencement Date and in event the Application is filed beyond such period, the same is liable to be rejected due to non-compliance of Regulation 35A of CIRP Regulations, 2016?

ii. Whether time period prescribed under Regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 is mandatory or directory?

iii. Whether Transaction claimed to be defrauding the Creditor under section 49 and fraudulent trading or wrongful trading within meaning of Section 66 can be questioned only within time period as prescribed under Section 46 i.e. one year or 2 years respectively and Application alleging defrauding the Creditors and transaction to be fraudulent trading or wrongful trading is liable to be rejected if it is filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 46 of the Code?

iv. Whether in the Application filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 742 of 2020 there were any pleadings of fraud as contemplated by Section 49 and 66 of the Code?

v. Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the Application being I.A. No. 742 of 2020?

Timeline prescribed in CIRP Regulation 35A is only directory and the timeline prescribed for transactions under Section 46 does not cover the transactions covered by Section 49 and 66 of the Code – Aditya Kumar Tibrewal RP Vs. Om Prakash Pandey, Suspended Director – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether arbitral Tribunal has the power to implead a party in exercise of its power under section 17 of the Arbitration Act in the first place? – Abhibus Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pallavan Transport Consultancies Services Ltd. – Madras High Court

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

Whether arbitral Tribunal has the power to implead a party in exercise of its power under section 17 of the Arbitration Act in the first place? – Abhibus Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pallavan Transport Consultancies Services Ltd. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top