585

The Tribunal has all the powers to compound all the offences irrespective of any pecuniary limit – SHCIL Services Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Mumbai – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT held that as to the issue with regards to restriction on the power of the ‘Regional Director’ and the ‘authorized officers of the Central Government’ permitting to compound the offences wherein the maximum amount of fine does not exceed Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs, Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of “Magnon Solutions Pvt. Ltd & Ors. V/s Registrar of Companies” has held that no such fetter has been put on powers of the Tribunal, which is the main forum for compounding of offences. The other forum of ‘Regional Director’ and ‘Officer of the Central Government’ being alternative but restricted by the extent of quantum of punishment, the Tribunal has all the powers to compound all the offences irrespective of any pecuniary limit. The Tribunal has been conferred with all powers to compound the offence irrespective of the limit of fine. Hence, the present Petition can be compounded.

The Tribunal has all the powers to compound all the offences irrespective of any pecuniary limit – SHCIL Services Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Mumbai – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Mere fact that default amount is reduced by certain amount realised after the invocation of Corporate Guarantee and issued a new notice to Corporate Guarantor cannot change the date of default – IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

By a notice dated 12.06.2020, Guarantor/Corporate Debtor were called upon to pay outstanding amount within two business days. After this, Financial Creditor realised certain amount and another notice was issued on 13.05.2022 demanding balance amount. The Adjudicating Authority considered date of default 12.06.2020 and dismissed section 7 application holding that the application is barred by Section 10A.
Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) The mere fact that the amount is reduced by certain amount realised in September, 2020 cannot change the default which occurred on 16.06.2020.
(ii) A submission that subsequent events certain amount was realised which has been given due credit in the total outstanding the date of default has to be treated subsequent date i.e. 15th May, 2022 cannot be accepted
(iii) Upheld the decision of NCLT Mumbai Bench.

Mere fact that default amount is reduced by certain amount realised after the invocation of Corporate Guarantee and issued a new notice to Corporate Guarantor cannot change the date of default – IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Issuance of a letter by the Corporate Debtor calling the representative of the Operational Creditor to settle the dispute cannot be considered as an acknowledgement of debt in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act – State of West Bengal Vs. Keshav Park Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Operational Creditor has issued the demand notice on 07.10.2017. Through its letter dated 14.12.2017, the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor requested the Operational Creditor to send its representative to the office of the Corporate Debtor with all the papers and documents for settlement of the claim. Issuance of the letter by the Corporate Debtor calling the representative of the Operational Creditor with all the papers to settle the dispute cannot be considered as an acknowledgement of debt in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. However, to apply the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it is necessary that before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation for suit or Application, such acknowledgement must be in writing.

Issuance of a letter by the Corporate Debtor calling the representative of the Operational Creditor to settle the dispute cannot be considered as an acknowledgement of debt in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act – State of West Bengal Vs. Keshav Park Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top