40

Custom Duty imposed for the sale to a foreign buyer during liquidation proceedings – The Customs Department Vs. Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench

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

Custom Duty imposed for the sale to a foreign buyer during liquidation proceedings – The Customs Department Vs. Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »

Is jurisdictional monetary threshold of Rs. 20 lakh applicable to an NBFC that is a Financial Institution (FI) under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and has invoked the SARFAESI Act as a Secured Creditor? | Is writ maintainable when the questions of jurisdiction raised? – Gupta Hardware Store and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Himachal Pradesh High Court

A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court held that:

(i) When the questions of jurisdiction are raised to the maintainability of any proceedings or pure questions of law arise with respect to existence, exercise of power by any authority/Tribunal created under a statute, then alternate remedy is no bar and is rendered a mere technicality. The writ Court can extend the large arms of its jurisdiction and powers to address and undo the wrong or illegal usurpation of powers by any statutory authority.
(ii) The notification issued under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act would not only apply, but bind the financial company, therefore, once these respondents seek to enforce the claim under the SARFAESI Act, as such, they are bound by the Notification dated 12.02.2021.

Is jurisdictional monetary threshold of Rs. 20 lakh applicable to an NBFC that is a Financial Institution (FI) under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and has invoked the SARFAESI Act as a Secured Creditor? | Is writ maintainable when the questions of jurisdiction raised? – Gupta Hardware Store and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Grievance of one of party with regard to conduct of arbitral proceedings, and a party’s substantive challenge with regard thereto, are beyond the scope of adjudication in proceedings under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Vivek Aggarwal And Anr Vs. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal and Ors. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court holds that the scope of Section 29A of the 1996 Act is very limited, i.e. as to whether the extension of the mandate ought to be given or not. In Wadia Techno–Engineering Services Limited. v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project (2023) ibclaw.in 486 HC, it was reiterated that the grievance of one of the parties with regard to the conduct of the arbitral proceedings, and a party’s substantive challenge with regard thereto, are beyond the scope of adjudication in proceedings under Section 29A of the 1996 Act.

Grievance of one of party with regard to conduct of arbitral proceedings, and a party’s substantive challenge with regard thereto, are beyond the scope of adjudication in proceedings under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Vivek Aggarwal And Anr Vs. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether Committee of Creditors (CoC) can take decision for liquidation of Corporate Debtor without taking any step regarding resolution in Corporate Insolvency (CIRP), i.e. without publishing Form-G, EOI etc. – ACRE – 81 Trust Through its trustee Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar Goyal IRP of SARE Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, CoC without following any process under CIRP, took the decision for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor by 88.48% voting share. NCLT New Delhi Bench rejects the IA for liquidation and order for notice u/s 65.
On appeal, Hon’ble NCLAT referring decision in Sunil S. Kakkad Vs. Atrium Infocom Pvt. Ltd. [2020] ibclaw.in 42 NCLAT, holds that there is an error in the approach of the Adjudicating Authority that for the purpose of taking a decision regarding the liquidation of the CD, the CoC has to complete all the steps regarding resolution of the CD because it would be against the spirit of Sec. 33(2) and explanation appended to it wherein the legislature has used the word any time twice i.e., firstly, in Sec. 33(2) and secondly, in the explanation of Sec. 33(2) of the Code that the CoC has the jurisdiction to pass the order of liquidation of the CD, approving it by not less than 66% of the voting share, but it should be before the confirmation of the resolution plan.

Whether Committee of Creditors (CoC) can take decision for liquidation of Corporate Debtor without taking any step regarding resolution in Corporate Insolvency (CIRP), i.e. without publishing Form-G, EOI etc. – ACRE – 81 Trust Through its trustee Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar Goyal IRP of SARE Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top