Shri Karshni Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan Liquidator of Surana Industries Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Rakesh Kumar Singala Liquidator of Apple Industries Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »
The Adjudicating Authority held that there are 7 Petitions filed u/s 241 & 242 of the companies Act, 2013, including one petition pertaining to Corporate Debtor numbered as TP/95(MB)2015, are pending since year 2015 and these petitions pertain to allegation of operation mismanagement made by wife of the Applicant against him. Even, if it is considered that the amount claimed is an operational debt, as claimed by the Applicant, there exist a prior dispute raised by the other shareholders in relation to affairs and management of the Corporate debtor by the Applicant himself. In view of this also, this Application u/s 9 of the Code deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that this Application is motivated from the dispute between the promoters and does not seek resolution of the Corporate Debtor.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Cimco Projects Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anup Kumar – Supreme Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
NCLAT observed that in the present case, there is no doubt that 260 sq. yards land belongs to the Corporate Debtor which is in the liquidation estate. The Liquidator who is present before us submits that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case 1400 sq. yards and 260 sq. yards are not separable and sale of composite property can obtain the maximum revenue for the said land and joints sale of the property is material to have more revenue for the property which may be beneficial to the liquidation estate. Further NCLAT held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no error can be found with the Order of the Adjudicating Authority directing for composite sale of land of both the parts under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Even the Liquidator when he sells the property under the liquidation, he has to follow the procedure under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for sale of the property.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
NCLAT set aside the CIRP admission order of NCLT and held that the Adjudicating Authority is obliged to investigate the nature of the transaction and should be very cautious in admitting the Application in order to prevent taking undue benefit of provisions of IBC to detriment of the rights of legitimate creditors as well as to protect the Corporate Debtor from being dragged into CIRP with malafide. It also held that the Financial Creditor has not furnished any document to show that the transaction in question is a loan transaction. So far as the section 10 of Indian Contract Act and Rule 3 (1) (d) of the Rules is concerned we again refer the Prayag Polytech (2019) ibclaw.in 362 NCLAT. The Financial Contract as per the Rule 3(1)(d) is must between the corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor for setting out the terms of a Financial Debt including the tenure of the Debt, interest payable and the date of repayment. In the absence of such Financial Contract, the Financial Creditor has failed to satisfy that when the debt and interest become due and payable.(p19-22)
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Somany Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Indo Tech Projects Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-IV Read Post »