296

Kairav Anil Trivedi Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Ors. – Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court denies to issue notice on SLP challenging order of Bombay High Court wherein, it was held that suspension of authorisation for assignment (AFA) pending consideration of show cause notices issued under Section 219 of IBC is not contrary to law, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case and dismisses the SLP.

Kairav Anil Trivedi Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Erstwhile Committee of Creditors of Transstroy Tirupati-Tiruthani-Chennai Tollways Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Erstwhile Committee of Creditors of Transstroy Tirupati-Tiruthani-Chennai Tollways Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Resolution Professional may submit an Additional Report in continuation of his first Report u/s 99 of IBC after giving an opportunity to the Personal Guarantor – Ramesh Chander Agarwala Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Personal Guarantor was not given the limited notice and the Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order appointed the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional has submitted a report which report has been taken on record by the Adjudicating Authority. Personal Guarantor challenged the order before NCLAT.
The NCLAT held that in the interest of justice, we give an opportunity to the Personal Guarantor to submit a representation to RP along with relevant materials which the Personal Guarantor want to communicate to the RP which he may do so within two weeks from today. The RP after considering the submissions may submit an ‘Additional Report’ in continuation of his first Report and the Adjudicating Authority before taking a decision for admission or rejection of the Application as contemplated under Section 100 may consider both the reports.

Resolution Professional may submit an Additional Report in continuation of his first Report u/s 99 of IBC after giving an opportunity to the Personal Guarantor – Ramesh Chander Agarwala Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

A Corporate Debtor who is a Co-Operative Society does not come under the purview of the Code and therefore the CIRP cannot be initiated under IBC – The Solapur Dist. Central Co – Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s Swami Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Mohammadiya Educational Society (2021) ibclaw.in 361 NCLAT. The issue before the Hon’ble NCLAT was whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act would fall under the definition of a corporate person under the Code. It held that the Corporate Debtor who is a Co-Operative Society registered/incorporated under the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960, does not come under the purview of the Code and therefore the CIRP cannot be initiated against the Corporate Debtor.

A Corporate Debtor who is a Co-Operative Society does not come under the purview of the Code and therefore the CIRP cannot be initiated under IBC – The Solapur Dist. Central Co – Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s Swami Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

From a bare reading of Section 9 of the A&C Act, it is evident that the same empowers the Court to grant reliefs which are in the nature of interim measures till the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted or unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 efficaciously – Cement Corporation of India Vs. Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. – Delhi High Court

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

From a bare reading of Section 9 of the A&C Act, it is evident that the same empowers the Court to grant reliefs which are in the nature of interim measures till the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted or unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 efficaciously – Cement Corporation of India Vs. Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top