287

Whether the delay in preferring an appeal u/s 30 of RDB Act, 1993 beyond a period of 30 days is condonable by virtue of Sec. 20 read with Sec. 24 of the RDB Act as well as Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act – Nipco Manufacturing & Trading Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India – DRAT Mumbai

/ 2 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. (2017) ibclaw.in 77 SC observed that the RDDB Act was enacted to facilitate and expedite recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions by summary proceedings before the statutory Tribunal. Section 18 bars the jurisdiction of any court or other authority in such matters (except the Supreme Court/High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution). Sec. 31 provides for the transfer of pending cases from a court to the Tribunal.

Whether the delay in preferring an appeal u/s 30 of RDB Act, 1993 beyond a period of 30 days is condonable by virtue of Sec. 20 read with Sec. 24 of the RDB Act as well as Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act – Nipco Manufacturing & Trading Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India – DRAT Mumbai Read Post »

The Court must only conduct a limited enquiry for the purpose of examining whether Section 11(6) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 application filed within the limitation period of three years or not, it would not be proper to enquiry whether the claims are time barred | Arbitral Tribunal may impose arbitration costs on petitioner if claims are time-barred – Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh Vs. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court

/ 43 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while determining the issue of limitation in the exercise of powers under Section 11(6), the referral court must only conduct a limited enquiry for the purpose of examining whether the Section 11(6) application has been filed within the limitation period of three years or not. At this stage, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner are time barred. Such a determination must be left to the decision of the arbitrator.

The Court also held that the arbitral tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration.

The Court must only conduct a limited enquiry for the purpose of examining whether Section 11(6) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 application filed within the limitation period of three years or not, it would not be proper to enquiry whether the claims are time barred | Arbitral Tribunal may impose arbitration costs on petitioner if claims are time-barred – Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh Vs. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

If Municipal Corporation did not lodge its claim in respect of Property Tax dues against the Corporate Debtor during CIRP, any statutory dues prior to the date on which Resolution Plan is approved cannot be demanded/recovered – Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court

/ 20 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
(i) In essence, once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC, all stakeholders including Central Government, any State Government or any local authority are bound by its terms, and any claims or dues including statutory dues owed to the governmental agencies which are not a part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished.
(ii) In the present case, the MCD did not lodge its claim in respect of property tax dues against the petitioner during the CIRP. Admittedly, the claim of the MCD is not a part of the approved resolution plan. Consequently, prima facie, any statutory dues owed to the MCD by the petitioner prior to the date on which the resolution plan is approved i.e. 26.03.2021, cannot be demanded/recovered.

If Municipal Corporation did not lodge its claim in respect of Property Tax dues against the Corporate Debtor during CIRP, any statutory dues prior to the date on which Resolution Plan is approved cannot be demanded/recovered – Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether the period of limitation for both Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor shall be same for the purposes of filing IBC Section 7 application for the Bank? – Archana Deepak Wani Vs. Indian Bank – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 41 minutes of reading

The scheme of I&B Code clearly indicate that both the Principal Borrower and the Guarantor become liable to pay the amount when the default is committed. When default is committed by the Principal Borrower the amount becomes due not only against the Principal Borrower but also against the Corporate Guarantor, which is the scheme of the I&B Code. When we read with as is delineated by Section 3(11) of the Code, debt becomes due both on Principal Borrower and the Guarantor. The definition of default under Section 3(12) in addition to expression ‘due’ occurring in Section 3(11) uses two additional expressions i.e “payable” and “is not paid by the debtor or corporate debtor”. The expression ‘is not paid by the debtor’ has to be given some meaning. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank vs. Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors., a guarantor’s liability depends on terms of his contract. There can be default by the Principal Borrower and the Guarantor on the same date or date of default for both may be different depending on the terms of contract of guarantee. It is well settled that the loan agreement with the Principal Borrower and the Bank as well as Deed of Guarantee between the Bank and the Guarantor are two different transactions and the Guarantor’s liability has to be read from the Deed of Guarantee.

Whether the period of limitation for both Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor shall be same for the purposes of filing IBC Section 7 application for the Bank? – Archana Deepak Wani Vs. Indian Bank – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top