485

The quantum of debt and adjustment of any amount already realized by Bank are the questions which has to be taken into consideration when payment plan is finalized, not at admission stage of application u/s 95 of IBC – Hari Singh Thakur Vs. Sandeep Kumar Bhatt (RP) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT while upholding the decision of NCLT held that the question of debt and adjustment of any amount already realized by the Bank are the question which has to be taken into consideration when payment plan is finalized. As far as the valuation of the assets, it is always open for the Appellant to object before the Adjudicating Authority by bringing appropriate material, if any. The said argument is also not an argument for challenging admission of Section 95 application. Amount realized by the Bank are to be reflected at the time of finalization of the payment plan.

The quantum of debt and adjustment of any amount already realized by Bank are the questions which has to be taken into consideration when payment plan is finalized, not at admission stage of application u/s 95 of IBC – Hari Singh Thakur Vs. Sandeep Kumar Bhatt (RP) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The period of CIRP cannot be extended on the flimsy grounds much beyond the period of 330 days – Dr. Palani G Periasamy Vs. CA M. Suresh Kumar Liquidator, Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that we could not find any substance in the argument of Counsel for the Appellant because the CoC had time and again extended the period which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority but two resolution plans in respect of the Corporate Debtor were rejected with the majority of the vote of 91.92% by the CoC and at that time the CoC was aware that 330 days time period in respect of the Corporate Debtor had already been over. Moreover, it has been categorically observed by the Adjudicating Authority that neither any plan was pending nor any application under Section 12A of the Code was pending for their consideration, therefore, the period of CIRP cannot be extended on the flimsy grounds much beyond the period of 330 days as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. [2019] ibclaw.in 07 SC.

The period of CIRP cannot be extended on the flimsy grounds much beyond the period of 330 days – Dr. Palani G Periasamy Vs. CA M. Suresh Kumar Liquidator, Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

ICICI Prudential Venture Capital Fund Real Estate Scheme I Represented by its Investment Manager ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Ltd. Vs. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

ICICI Prudential Venture Capital Fund Real Estate Scheme I Represented by its Investment Manager ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Ltd. Vs. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top