Seeta Shah Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Seeta Shah Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Seeta Shah Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Govardhana Cotton Traders Vs. Idupulapadu Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
IAs filed to praying grant permission to the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor to distribute the two unsold properties of the Corporate Debtor to the ICICI Bank Limited in terms of Section 53 of IBC read with Liquidation Process Regulation 38 subject to the payment of the Liquidator Fee and Expenses incurred by the applicant being the Liquidator during the liquidation process as assured by the ICICI Bank Limited.
NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II held that as there are also other creditors including the CBDT (Income-Tax Department), it could be fair if the property is sold by open auction and the money is distributed in terms of provisions of Section 53 of the IBC, 2016 as per the waterfall mechanism. Though the liquidation order in the present case was passed on 20.12.2019, and admittedly these were only two assets that were to be disposed of by the Liquidator, the Liquidator has not been able to dispose of them on one pretext or the other. Though he submits that the assets were advertised twice. In the wake, we are inclined to order that the assets of the Corporate Debtor should be liquidated with due process of the open auction to be advertised in the newspapers under the direct supervision of a senior officer of IBBI. Let the process be completed within six weeks.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Manesh Agarwal Vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma, RP of B.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
The Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that once the DRT itself on application of mind has permitted the applicant in an Original Application refund of Court fees, and when the entitlement for refund of Court fees itself has been fixed by a judicial order, it would not be permissible for the Registrar of the DRT to nonetheless insist that a joint application ought to be presented for refund of Court fees. However, this would not mean that where in case if the Registrar has any doubt on materials that the applicant in the Original Application does not himself/itself become entitled for refund of Court fees and/or if the judicial order does not grant a clear refund of Court fees to the plaintiff alone, in such cases, certainly requirement of joint application can be insisted, as in such cases the complexion of the refund application itself would be completely different.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Draeger India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Chowdappa – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
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
Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs. Ravin Cables Ltd. – Gujarat High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here