449

NCLT has power to sanction proposed modification in the swap ratio of the Transferor Companies to the Scheme of Merger/Amalgamation – One World Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FIM Holdco Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) No major amendment has been proposed to the scheme. The only change which has occurred is a miniscule change in the swap ratio of the Transferor Companies. Admittedly the Scheme is reasonable, just and fair to all the stakeholders of the respective Companies and in accordance with all extant laws.
(ii) NCLT in the interest of time and justice, should have considered the deemed approval of the shareholders as stated in their consent affidavits or in the alternate could have issued directions for tendering fresh consent affidavits rather than dismissing the said CA in limine and asking to file First Motion afresh.

NCLT has power to sanction proposed modification in the swap ratio of the Transferor Companies to the Scheme of Merger/Amalgamation – One World Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FIM Holdco Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability | Section 96 of IBC does not bar on Court’s direction to deposit an amount as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence under NI Act, 1881 – Anurodh Mittal Vs. Rehat Trading Company and Anr. – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court refers P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 24 SC and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 30 SC judgments and holds that considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability, it is held that conviction recorded by Trial Court was not bad on account of initiation of proceedings under the Code, 2016.

Merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability | Section 96 of IBC does not bar on Court’s direction to deposit an amount as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence under NI Act, 1881 – Anurodh Mittal Vs. Rehat Trading Company and Anr. – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Payment made after expiry of original period of 3 years from the date of last invoice cannot be considered an acknowledgment for extension of limitation period – SSP Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govind Jee Dairy Milk Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

This Appeal has been filed against the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant as barred by time. The Adjudicating Authority in the Order has noted invoice and part payments received from Corporate Debtor. The last part payment which was received on 29.03.2014 and thereafter on 14.02.2018 that is beyond three years hence it was held to be barred by time.

NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in dismissing the Application as barred by time since the payment made on 14.02.2018 was on expiry of three years from the last payment. We thus do not find any error in rejecting Section 9 Application however it shall be open for the Appellant to take such remedy as available in law with regard to their claim in accordance with law.

Payment made after expiry of original period of 3 years from the date of last invoice cannot be considered an acknowledgment for extension of limitation period – SSP Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govind Jee Dairy Milk Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top