42

Procedure for replacement of an Authorised Representatives as per CIRP Regulation 16A(3A) has to be followed for replacement of Authorised Representatives | A lone Homebuyer cannot be allowed to question the voting by Authorised Representatives on behalf of majority of Financial Creditor in a class – Ashmeet Singh Bhatia Vs. Rakesh Verma and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

The NCLAT New Delhi held that:

(i) The date of refiling after curing the defects cannot be treated to be date of filing of the Appeal for purposes of computation of limitation and date of e-filing cannot be treated to be fresh date of filing of the Appeal.
(ii) All Authorised Representative in a class are bound by the voting by majority of votes as reflected by the voting by the AR. A lone Homebuyer cannot be allowed to question the voting by Authorised Representatives on behalf of majority of Financial Creditor in a class.
(iii) When a procedure for replacement of the Authorised Representatives have been introduced in the Regulations by 16A(3A) inserted on 18.09.2023, the said statutory provision has to be followed for replacement of Authorised Representatives.

Procedure for replacement of an Authorised Representatives as per CIRP Regulation 16A(3A) has to be followed for replacement of Authorised Representatives | A lone Homebuyer cannot be allowed to question the voting by Authorised Representatives on behalf of majority of Financial Creditor in a class – Ashmeet Singh Bhatia Vs. Rakesh Verma and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Transmission of Shares without obtaining a Succession Certificate cannot be sustained – Avanti Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alkesh Gupta – NCLAT Chennai

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Transmission of shares on the basis of Will can raise complicated issues which require an evidence, to be read by the parties and need to be determined by a Court of Law.
(ii) If the probate proceedings are pending in a Civil Court, then the petition under the Companies Act for rectification of register would not be maintainable. Where there is a dispute as to the heirship of a deceased shareholder, the Company could refuse transfer of shares, until such dispute is resolved by a Competent Court of Law.
(iii) The Succession Certificate, specifies the debts and securities entitles a legal heirs not only to receive the Interest or Dividends but also to negotiate or transfer them.
(iv) From the Section 44 of the Companies Act, 2013, it is cleared that shares are construed as movable property governed by the Articles of Association of the Company and Article 8.15 mandates that a Succession Certificate is required for the transmission of the shares.
(v) The prayer of the first Respondent herein seeking transmission of Shares without even obtaining a Succession Certificate, cannot be sustained. This Tribunal is of the considered view that submission of a Succession Certificate, as provided for under the Articles of Association of the Appellant Company, is required for the transmission of shares of the deceased Member.

Transmission of Shares without obtaining a Succession Certificate cannot be sustained – Avanti Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alkesh Gupta – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

In the absence of any clause in Invoice regarding interest on delayed payment, Operational Creditor, even being a MSME, cannot club interest with principal to meet threshold limit under Sec. 4 of IBC – Neptunus Power Plant Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jagson International Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench

In this case, the Operational Creditor has claimed an amount of Rs 87,67,953/- towards principal and amount of Rs 33,00,000.54/- towards interest.

Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi Bench observes that the entire claim is based on invoices issued by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor has claimed to be an MSME and has charged interest being an MSME. The Operational Creditor has not shown any clause in the invoice which shows that interest is leviable in case of default or late payment. In the absence of any such clause Operational Creditor cannot claim interest.

In the absence of any clause in Invoice regarding interest on delayed payment, Operational Creditor, even being a MSME, cannot club interest with principal to meet threshold limit under Sec. 4 of IBC – Neptunus Power Plant Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jagson International Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top