53

In the case where an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed, the date of disposal would be the starting point for calculation of limitation – TEFCIL Breweries Ltd. Vs. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. – Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that to state that the date of receipt of the corrected award even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed will be taken as the starting point of the time period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not the date of the disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In the case where an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed, the date of disposal would be the starting point for calculation of limitation – TEFCIL Breweries Ltd. Vs. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Bar contained in Section 14(3) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not apply to a remedy provided before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 | Against an order under Section 14, an aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 17 – Sai Hemaja Aerobricks Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Vs. State Bank of India and another – Telangana High Court

Hon’ble Telangana High Court held that:

(i) The borrower has the remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(ii) The contention that the decisions of Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra), Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra), Satyawati Tondon (supra), Hindon Forge Private Limited (supra) and Hemraj Ratnakar Salian (supra) are per incurium cannot be accepted, as it is not open for this Court to hold that a decision of Supreme Court is per incurium as the same would be violative of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate or any officer authorised by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority.
(iv) The Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act is neither a Court nor an Authority. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act does not apply to a remedy provided before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
(v) In view of preceding analysis, it is held that against an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Bar contained in Section 14(3) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not apply to a remedy provided before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 | Against an order under Section 14, an aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 17 – Sai Hemaja Aerobricks Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Vs. State Bank of India and another – Telangana High Court Read Post »

CIRP Claim filing ‘Form’ is directory, claim must be supported by proof is important | NCLT can recall Resolution Plan approval order passed under Sec. 31(1) of IBC | Claim filed in wrong Form/category would have to be accorded due consideration in the category to which it belongs – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni and Anr. – Supreme Court

In this landmark decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court rules that:

(i) Even if a claim submitted by a creditor against the CD is in a Form not as specified in the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the same has to be given due consideration by the IRP or the RP.
(ii) If a claim is submitted by an operational creditor claiming itself as a financial creditor, the claim would have to be accorded due consideration in the category to which it belongs provided it is verifiable.
(iii) The use of the words “a person claiming to be an operational creditor” in the opening part of CIRP Regulation 7, and the words “a person claiming to be a financial creditor” in CIRP Regulation 8, indicate that the category in which the claim is submitted is based on the own understanding of the claimant.
(iv) Once the claim was submitted with proof, it could not have been overlooked merely because it was in a different Form. The Form in which a claim is to be submitted is directory. What is necessary is that the claim must have support from proof.
(v) If any such shortcoming appears in the resolution plan, it may send the resolution plan back to the COC for re-submission after satisfying the parameters so laid down.
(vi) A Court or a Tribunal, in absence of any provision to the contrary, has inherent power to recall an order to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
(vii) Even in absence of a specific provision empowering the Tribunal to recall its order, the Tribunal has power to recall its order.
(viii) However, such power is to be exercised sparingly, and not as a tool to re-hear the matter.
(ix) The recall application was maintainable notwithstanding that an appeal lay before the NCLAT against the order of approval passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

CIRP Claim filing ‘Form’ is directory, claim must be supported by proof is important | NCLT can recall Resolution Plan approval order passed under Sec. 31(1) of IBC | Claim filed in wrong Form/category would have to be accorded due consideration in the category to which it belongs – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Only two alternative courses of action are available to Adjudicating Authority under Sec. 7(5) of IBC which is to either admit the application u/s 7(5)(a) or reject the petition u/s 7(5)(b) – Sudhir Darode Suspended Director, Darode Jog Realties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In the appeal against Sec. 7 application, Hon’ble NCLAT holds that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. (2017) ibclaw.in 02 SC, has laid down the guiding principles to admit or reject an application filed under Section 7 of the IBC. Under the ambit of Section 7 of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority is to only determine whether a default has occurred and whether the debt, which may still be disputed, was due and remained unpaid. It is a well settled proposition of law that only two alternative courses of action are available to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7(5) of the IBC which is to either admit the application under Section 7(5)(a) or reject the petition under Section 7(5)(b). The moment the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the Application is to be admitted unless it is incomplete.

Only two alternative courses of action are available to Adjudicating Authority under Sec. 7(5) of IBC which is to either admit the application u/s 7(5)(a) or reject the petition u/s 7(5)(b) – Sudhir Darode Suspended Director, Darode Jog Realties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top