615

Any claims arising subsequent to CIRP commencement date can’t be entertained by Resolution Professional – Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mr. Udayraj Patwardhan RP of Adel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) The Appellant is the wholly owned PSU of Government of Gujarat and cannot take plea that he did not come to know of CIRP proceedings, since he was not specifically intimated.
(ii) There is a clear law that Resolution Professional can only entertain claims due and filed w.r.t. CIRP commencement date and not due to subsequent event, for which claimant might have other legal remedy.
(iii) It is settled law that the Resolution Professional can collate and verify claims w.r.t. CIRP date and therefore any claims arising subsequent to CIRP date can’t be entertained by Resolution Professional.

Any claims arising subsequent to CIRP commencement date can’t be entertained by Resolution Professional – Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mr. Udayraj Patwardhan RP of Adel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Liquidator has no right to ascertain the claims and rights of the Secured Creditors who chose to stand outside the (Liquidation Process) in respect of the securities – Mr. K.Sivalingam, Liquidator, MPL Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench

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

Liquidator has no right to ascertain the claims and rights of the Secured Creditors who chose to stand outside the (Liquidation Process) in respect of the securities – Mr. K.Sivalingam, Liquidator, MPL Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Whether the requirement of approval by Competition Commission of India (CCI) prior to the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC is mandatory or directory under the proviso to Section 31(4) of IBC – Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Looking to the timeline provided in the Code and that of the Competition Act and to hold that prior approval of CCI is required prior to approval of Plan by the CoC, mandatorily will lead to adverse effect on the CIRP. We may, however, observe that even if the requirement of approval by the CCI, prior to approval by the CoC is held to be ‘directory’, that does not mean that provision of Section 31(4) is not to be complied with. The proviso to Section 31(4) is clear as to what was contemplated was approval by the CCI prior to approval of CoC. Hence, in all cases the law has to be complied with. It cannot be held that since provision is there, approval by CCI has to be obtained prior to approval of Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. We have noticed above the judgments of this Tribunal where it has been laid down that approval by CCI, prior to approval by the CoC is ‘directory’ because there is no consequences provided for non-compliance of Section 31(4) proviso.
(ii) Section 31, sub-section (4) proviso has to be read to mean that though the approval by the CCI is ‘mandatory’, the approval by the CCI prior to approval of CoC is ‘directory’.

Whether the requirement of approval by Competition Commission of India (CCI) prior to the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC is mandatory or directory under the proviso to Section 31(4) of IBC – Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the revision petition before the Court of Sessions was maintainable against an order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act? – Sanjay P. S. Vs. Abhishek M. – Karnataka High Court

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

Whether the revision petition before the Court of Sessions was maintainable against an order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act? – Sanjay P. S. Vs. Abhishek M. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top