Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Shriramrathi Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
NCLAT held that in Law, Sufficient Cause is not different from Good Cause. A Party who is not vigilant may not get a second opportunity. Mere absence of the Learned Counsel or a Pleader or that he is engaged elsewhere or he was engaged or in another Court is not a good reason for Restoration. Indeed, acceptability of an Explanation is the criteria for allowing a Restoration Application projected by a Party. If there is inaction, want of Bonafide, which is imputable to the Applicant/Appellant, then the Restoration Application is not to be allowed by a Tribunal or by a Court of Law. Of course, the Tribunal is to decide the Restoration Application on merits. It must be remembered that time is precious and a wasted time will never come back again or revisit in the considered opinion of this Tribunal.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
State Bank of India Vs. M/s. Garg Inox Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Tommorrowland Ltd. Vs. Pressman Advertising Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
NCLT held that since the Applicant has not served the Demand Notice to the Personal Guarantor, as required mandatorily under Section 95(4)(b) of IBC 2016 read with Rule 7 (1) of the AAAIRPPG Rules, 2019, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Further, the date of NPA has also not been disclosed by the Applicant. Overall, the Application lacks material pleadings as to how the debt has become due and payable. That we are constrained to observe that the Application has been filed in a casual manner by the Applicant Bank. The Applicant should have been diligent enough in filing the Application under Section 95 of IBC 2016, since under this section the moment the Application is filed, interim moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) of IBC 2016 gets triggered, which could cause prejudice to other creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The Petition is Dismissed.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Unistill Alcoblends Pvt. Ltd. Vs. India Brewery & Distillery Pvt. Ltd.- NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
