367

Principles for the period of limitation under IBC – M/s Shristi Construction Vs. Nadia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The NCLT Kolkata Bench has listed the the principles for the period of limitation under IBC would be the following: –

(i) The provisions of the Limitation Act have been made applicable to the proceedings under the Code.

(ii) Section 238-A predicates that the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to the proceedings before the adjudicating authority.

(iii) Article 137 of the Limitation Act prescribes period of limitation as three years which equally applies to application under Section 7 and 9 of the Code.

(iv) However, Limitation for filing application under Section 7 or 9 of the Code would not be limited to Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

(v) Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which extends the period of limitation depending upon an acknowledgment of debt made in writing and signed by the corporate debtor, it also applicable under Section 238-A.

Principles for the period of limitation under IBC – M/s Shristi Construction Vs. Nadia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

CIRP under Section 9 of IBC cannot be initiated on non-payment of the TDS amount by the Corporate Debtor – Amitabh Roy Vs. Master Development Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that in non-payment of the TDS amount by the Corporate Debtor there was no occasion for admitting Section 9 Application by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority committed serious error in admitting Section 9 Application on the aforesaid submission of the Operational Creditor that non-payment of the TDS amounts is default. The consequences of non-payment of TDS are provided under Income Tax Act, 1961 and income tax authorities have ample powers to take appropriate action.

CIRP under Section 9 of IBC cannot be initiated on non-payment of the TDS amount by the Corporate Debtor – Amitabh Roy Vs. Master Development Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Rule 155 of NCLT Rules, 2016 which allows amendments only within 30 days from the date of completion of pleadings is not applicable where amendment is being done in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court – B. Prashanth Hegde Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Rule 155 of NCLT Rules, 2016 which allows amendments only within 30 days from the date of completion of pleadings is not applicable where amendment is being done in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court – B. Prashanth Hegde Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Prole Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Through Erstwhile Director Sh. Vijay Kumar Kashinath Fadke Vs. The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the decision in regard to approval of Committee of Creditors being a business decision based on commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is not amenable to judicial review. This is the settled position of law. That apart, the endeavours on the part of learned counsel for the Appellant to demonstrate that it has made efforts to settle the dues of the Financial Creditor, with reference to the documents on record, fail to impress this Appellate Tribunal as there is ample proof on record to demonstrate that the Adjudicating Authority was approached at the time when the CIRP was at an advanced stage and it had permitted the Appellant to take immediate steps for settlement of the claim of the Financial Creditor. This is clearly borne out by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 27th June, 2019. The Resolution Plan came to be approved more than three months thereafter. There is nothing demonstrable on record that the Appellant has taken any steps to settle the claim of the Financial Creditor, though Financial Creditor had expressed its willingness to withdraw the cases filed by it against the Appellant/Corporate Debtor provided its claim was satisfied and payment was made as per Recovery Certificate. In this factual background, we find that no ground across the ambit of Section 61(3) of I&B Code demonstrating any material irregularity in the CIRP is made out for interference. There is no merit in this appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Prole Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Through Erstwhile Director Sh. Vijay Kumar Kashinath Fadke Vs. The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top