642

If party is able to convince the Court that by the time the application u/s 17 of Arbitration Act is taken up by Arbitral Tribunal, the prejudice that may result would be irreparable, it may be justified for the Court to take up the application u/s 9 of Arbitration even when the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of the disputes – Welspun Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

/ 13 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Delhi High Court Once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a Court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal. One may, for example, take a case in which there is an imminent threat of invocation of Bank Guarantee or a case in which there is an imminent threat of dispossession. If party is able to convince the Court that by the time the application is taken up by the Arbitral Tribunal, the prejudice that may result would be irreparable, it may be justified for the Court to take up the matter even when the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of the disputes.

If party is able to convince the Court that by the time the application u/s 17 of Arbitration Act is taken up by Arbitral Tribunal, the prejudice that may result would be irreparable, it may be justified for the Court to take up the application u/s 9 of Arbitration even when the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of the disputes – Welspun Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The provisions of Section 60(5) of IBC can be invoked for recovery of admitted outstanding against services rendered by the Corporate Debtor, instead of Civil Court(s) or Arbitral Proceedings – Vineet K. Chaudhary Vs. NTPC Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 4 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:

(i) NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the corporate debtor.
(ii) The process of undergoing CIRP or liquidation under the IB Code is a time bound process.
(iii) If the Liquidator is relegated to civil court(s) or arbitral proceedings even in respect of admitted dues, it would definitely defeat the objects of the Code and the objective of concluding the process in a time bound manner would never be possibly adhered to.
(iv) Judgment in Shri Ramachandra D. Choudhary v. Bansal Trading Company and Ors. (2022) ibclaw.in 653 NCLAT cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the instant case as there is no such dispute to the extent of admitted liability and for undisputed liabilities, the parties cannot be driven to unnecessary and lengthy litigation.

The provisions of Section 60(5) of IBC can be invoked for recovery of admitted outstanding against services rendered by the Corporate Debtor, instead of Civil Court(s) or Arbitral Proceedings – Vineet K. Chaudhary Vs. NTPC Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

By virtue of Section 238, IBC clearly has overriding powers over KVAT Act and its proceedings – Deputy Commissioner, Works Contract, Kerala GST Department Vs. Vinod Balachandran FCA, Liquidator – NCLT Kochi Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

NCLT Kochi Bench held that the claim was filed with an inordinate delay of 266 days from last date of receipt of claims by liquidator. Moreover, this claim arises out of what can be clearly termed as ‘proceedings’ which is prohibited under section 33(5) of the IBC, 2016. By virtue of Section 238, IBC clearly has overriding powers over KVAT Act and its proceedings which is upheld by the Supreme Court on various occasions. Hence this order dated 26.09.2022 of the appellant is void and non est in law as per the IBC. This position was also affirmed vide order dated 26.10.2022 by this Tribunal in IA(IBC)/331/KOB/2022. The appellant has misplaced reliance on State Tax Officer Vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 107 SC Judgement of SC which has different set of facts as well.

By virtue of Section 238, IBC clearly has overriding powers over KVAT Act and its proceedings – Deputy Commissioner, Works Contract, Kerala GST Department Vs. Vinod Balachandran FCA, Liquidator – NCLT Kochi Bench Read Post »

Whether a member of the Bench who has not heard the arguments can pronounce the order of a Reserved Judgment? – Bhawanishankar Harishchandra Sharma Vs. Feedback Highways Omt Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 32 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that it is clear to us that law does not permit that the case is heard by one entity and the order is pronounced by another who has not heard the case at all. In such circumstances, the question posed hereinabove is hereby answered in favour of the Appellant and it is held that the order dated 10.01.2018, having been passed by a bench in which one of the member was not a member of the bench who had heard the matter at the time when it was reserved, is patently illegal and void ab-initio.

Whether a member of the Bench who has not heard the arguments can pronounce the order of a Reserved Judgment? – Bhawanishankar Harishchandra Sharma Vs. Feedback Highways Omt Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top