473

Grim Tech Project India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

It is well-established principle that where amendment is sought to avoid multiplicity of suits, or where the parties in the plaint/petition are wrongly described, the amendment should be allowed and the courts/tribunals have wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings.

Grim Tech Project India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

When Guarantee requires invocation of the guarantee deed, default on the Guarantor shall be the date when Guarantee has been invoked, date of default on the part of Principal Borrower cannot be put for Corporate Guarantor – Mudhit Madanlal Gupta Vs. Supreme Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this important judgment, NCLAT held that:
(i) When the Financial Creditor has invoked the corporate guarantee of the corporate guarantor by the notice dated 16.10.2020 and asked the corporate guarantor to make the payment within seven days from the receipt of the notice, the default has occurred during the 10A period and the default dated 02.07.2019 which is default alleged against the Principal Borrower can not be put to a default for corporate guarantor.
(ii) Liability of corporate guarantor although is coextensive of the Principal Borrower but when the Guarantee requires invocation of the guarantee deed, default on the guarantor shall be the date when corporate guarantee has been invoked.

When Guarantee requires invocation of the guarantee deed, default on the Guarantor shall be the date when Guarantee has been invoked, date of default on the part of Principal Borrower cannot be put for Corporate Guarantor – Mudhit Madanlal Gupta Vs. Supreme Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether on the administrative side the Acting President can pass an order exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 – Sonia Khosla & Anr. Vs. Montreaux Resorts (P) Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Whether on the administrative side the Acting President can pass an order exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 – Sonia Khosla & Anr. Vs. Montreaux Resorts (P) Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether in view of Section 16(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the amendment to Order V Rule 1 (in 2016) service of Writ of Summons in addition to Warrant of arrest is mandatory in an action in rem under the Admiralty Act, 2017 to commence time for filing of Written Statement on behalf of the vessel – CMOG Fuel DMCC Vs. OSS Altus Uber – Bombay High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Whether in view of Section 16(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the amendment to Order V Rule 1 (in 2016) service of Writ of Summons in addition to Warrant of arrest is mandatory in an action in rem under the Admiralty Act, 2017 to commence time for filing of Written Statement on behalf of the vessel – CMOG Fuel DMCC Vs. OSS Altus Uber – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Once the Plan is approved by majority of the CoC as provided for under Section 30 of the Code, then no fresh plans may come in intervention of an already approved Plan- Amanat Randhawa Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Kant Nemani RP of Aryavir Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

AA has dismissed the Application preferred by the Applicant on the ground that the Application has been filed for consideration after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. NCLAT held the legislative intent of the statute together with the fact that in the instant case the Resolution Plan was accepted by 100% of voting share in the CoC Meeting dated 21.06.2021 and having regard to the fact that the Appellant had never participated in the EoI, we are of the view that any reliefs granted in contra to the timelines would be ultra vires to the scope and objective of the Code.

Once the Plan is approved by majority of the CoC as provided for under Section 30 of the Code, then no fresh plans may come in intervention of an already approved Plan- Amanat Randhawa Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Kant Nemani RP of Aryavir Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

During the period of Moratorium, Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (Exploration Division), cannot recover any amount nor can issue demand notice to the Corporate Debtor through IRP to pay any amount – Union of India & Anr. Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

During the period of Moratorium, Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (Exploration Division), cannot recover any amount nor can issue demand notice to the Corporate Debtor through IRP to pay any amount – Union of India & Anr. Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top