440

Even after Agreement to Assign, IBC Section 7 application filed by Financial Creditor (assignor) against Corporate Debtor is maintainable – JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. Howrah Mills Company Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Agreement dated 15.01.2020 was only agreement to assign and was not assignment agreement. Purchase consideration has not been paid. No document of assignment has yet been executed by the appellant in favour of Intending Assignee.
(ii) In any view of the matter, the debt of financial creditor has not been assigned to Intending Assignee till date. The Appellant continue to be creditor and the Corporate Debtor as a debtor.
(iii) Section 231 of the IBC which contains an injunction which is couched in negative term that “no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in which the Adjudicating Authority or the Board is empowered by, or under, this Code to pass any order”.
(iv) The interim injunction order passed by Court can have no effect on continuous of Section 7 application.
(v) The intending assignment having never taken place, the debt cannot be held to be assigned to Intending Assignee so that the Intending Assignee may step into the shoes of the financial creditor of the corporate debtor.

Even after Agreement to Assign, IBC Section 7 application filed by Financial Creditor (assignor) against Corporate Debtor is maintainable – JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. Howrah Mills Company Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Once the party has appeared in the proceeding in the original forum where the further dates are given in the proceedings, and pendency of the proceeding is known to a party, it is the responsibility of the party also to keep track of the proceedings and to participate in future developments in the matter – Ravindra G. Sapkal Promoter/erstwhile Chairman and MD of Kalyani Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Samata Nagari Sahkari Patsantha Maryadit – Kalyani Education Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT

The other ground raised by the Appellant to claim that Principles of Natural Justice are violated is that subsequent to filing of the Reply the Corporate Debtor did not get notice. NCLAT held that once the party has appeared in the proceeding in the original forum where the further dates are given in the proceedings, and pendency of the proceeding is known to a party, it is the responsibility of the party also to keep track of the proceedings and to participate in future developments in the matter.

Once the party has appeared in the proceeding in the original forum where the further dates are given in the proceedings, and pendency of the proceeding is known to a party, it is the responsibility of the party also to keep track of the proceedings and to participate in future developments in the matter – Ravindra G. Sapkal Promoter/erstwhile Chairman and MD of Kalyani Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Samata Nagari Sahkari Patsantha Maryadit – Kalyani Education Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top