651

NCLAT upholds decision of NCLT wherein a lead bank was allowed to intervene in application under Section 95 of IBC – Indian Bank Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Section 95 application was filed by Indian Bank. Hon’ble NCLT allowed Intervention Petition filed by SBI. Hon’ble NCLAT held that State Bank of India in the lead bank and Corporate Debtor’s resolution plan have been approved, which need to be implemented.

NCLAT upholds decision of NCLT wherein a lead bank was allowed to intervene in application under Section 95 of IBC – Indian Bank Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Regulations made thereunder, are required to be adhered to by a Stakeholder / Litigant in a scrupulous manner and that too in true Letter and Spirit – Valency International Pte Ltd Vs. Vasudevan & 2 oths. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that at this juncture, this Tribunal pertinently points out that Section 61 of the Code, 2016 is a Hard Taskmaster. The time limit and the procedural wrangle cannot be allowed to be shaked or shackled with by a Litigant. No doubt, the Appellate Tribunal at the time of dealing with the Condone Delay Application is not required to go into the merits of the case, and in short, merits of the case should not an issue in an Application filed by the concerned Applicant for condoning the delay in preferring such Application. Suffice it for this Tribunal to make a mention that the Provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Regulations made thereunder, are required to be adhered to by a Stakeholder / Litigant / Applicant in a scrupulous manner and that too in true Letter and Spirit.

The provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Regulations made thereunder, are required to be adhered to by a Stakeholder / Litigant in a scrupulous manner and that too in true Letter and Spirit – Valency International Pte Ltd Vs. Vasudevan & 2 oths. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

The latin maxim, nulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuria sua propria, will apply to the present case also. The Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Abhijeet Integrated Steel Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

In the case of State Bank of India v N. S. Engineering Projects Private Limited (2022) ibclaw.in 631 NCLT, we have taken the view that having contributed towards the default by their own conduct, the Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to maintain a section 7 application against the Corporate Debtor. The findings in that case will apply on all fours in a fact-situation such as the present case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case also, the present section 7 application deserves to be dismissed on the ground of contributory role played by the Financial Creditor, forcing the default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The latin maxim, nulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuria sua propria, will apply to the present case also. The Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

The latin maxim, nulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuria sua propria, will apply to the present case also. The Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Abhijeet Integrated Steel Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top