495

Time period under Regulation 35A of CIRP Regulations, 2016 is not mandatory but only directory in character – Mr. Tenny Jose Vs. Mr. Prathap Pillai RP of M/s. Tenny Jose Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that:
(i) A pre-ponderance of probability will suffice in respect of an offence of fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Code is sufficient but the probability must be such that it must satisfy the subjective conscience of the Adjudicating Authority.
(ii) In law, a Company or other entity which is involved in or assist and benefits from the offending business or benefits from business in an offending manner, does so knowingly and dishonestly can be held liable for a fraudulent trading.
(iii) Time period, as CIRP Regulation 35A, Resolution Professional is to form an opinion within 75 days of the CIRP and made determination within 115 days and is to file an application within 135 days from the date of commencement of CIRP is not a mandatory one but only directory in character.
(iv) In law a fraudulent intent is to be proved after a careful examination of all materials / evidence, as the case may be. If a fraudulent intent or fraudulent purpose is made out the liability must follow. An action can also lie, when there is a fraudulent purpose upon the customers of the Company. The Burden of Proof is the same as in a civil case where serious allegations of misconduct such as fraud are in issue. In an isolated fraud case, an Individual Tort Action(Civil Wrong) will lie.

Time period under Regulation 35A of CIRP Regulations, 2016 is not mandatory but only directory in character – Mr. Tenny Jose Vs. Mr. Prathap Pillai RP of M/s. Tenny Jose Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the findings of Arbitral Tribunal – ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HT Media Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that it is settled law that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is rather limited and even a contravention of a statute, that is not linked to a public policy or public interest, cannot be a ground for setting aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, even assuming that the learned Sole Arbitrator made a mistake in the interpretation of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, in my view, it cannot be a ground to interfere with the Arbitral Award in the exercise of the limited jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act.

The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the findings of Arbitral Tribunal – ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HT Media Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

M/s P.S. Constructions Vs. Consortium of Resolution Applicant (UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and WL Structures Pvt. Ltd.) of M/s. GVR Infra Projects Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

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

M/s P.S. Constructions Vs. Consortium of Resolution Applicant (UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and WL Structures Pvt. Ltd.) of M/s. GVR Infra Projects Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top