28

Liability to pay Pre-CIRP dues cannot be fastened on Successful Bidder simply because the assets was purchased in auction on “as is where is” and “as is what is basis” – Square Port Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Vijaykumar Iyer and Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:
(i) The dispute is arising from non-payment of Pre-CIRP dues, this arises from the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, hence vests the power in this Tribunal to decide on this issue and provide protection to the successful buyer from he obstruction caused due to non-payment of Pre-CIRP dues.
(ii) It is trite law that the auction purchaser gets the assets on “as is where is” and “as is what is” basis and such assets have to be free from all obligations or encumbrances, unless otherwise made part of the bidding document. Accordingly, the liability to pay Pre-CIRP dues can not be fastened on the Applicant simply because the Dabhol Shipyard was purchased in auction on “as is where is” and “as is what is basis”.

Liability to pay Pre-CIRP dues cannot be fastened on Successful Bidder simply because the assets was purchased in auction on “as is where is” and “as is what is basis” – Square Port Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Vijaykumar Iyer and Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Dismissal of review on the ground of limitation, cannot be held to be taking away the substantive right to challenge the Original Order by filing statutory appeal – MSTC Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank – Bombay High Court

/ 32 minutes of reading

Even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigours when prescribed by statute. There is no straight jacket formula for condonation of delay. The principles for condonation of delay are to be applied by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of a court, upon examining the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, has held that the expression “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally and that in the absence of anything showing malafides or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, normally delay has to be condoned. There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay and that the State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

Dismissal of review on the ground of limitation, cannot be held to be taking away the substantive right to challenge the Original Order by filing statutory appeal – MSTC Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Whether the mortgaged agreement approved by the Board of the Company which is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 be considered by the other parties or not – AVJ Heightss Apartment Owners Association Vs. India Infoline Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 36 minutes of reading

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

Whether the mortgaged agreement approved by the Board of the Company which is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 be considered by the other parties or not – AVJ Heightss Apartment Owners Association Vs. India Infoline Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser could not have been set aside on ground alone that the escalation of the prices in property was not considered – Rajasthan Financial Corporation Jaipur and Others Vs. M/s Jain Bandhu Sneh Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Another. – Supreme Court

/ 13 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the confirmation of sale only on the ground that the Corporation has not taken into account the escalation of the prices in property between 14.06.2013 to 15.01.2018. Except this ground, there is no fault found with the auction proceedings and finalization of the sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser could not have been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on this ground alone. However, we are in agreement with the observation that the Corporation ought to have considered imposing interest on the bid amount from 2013 to 2018.

Sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser could not have been set aside on ground alone that the escalation of the prices in property was not considered – Rajasthan Financial Corporation Jaipur and Others Vs. M/s Jain Bandhu Sneh Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Another. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top