671

An application, seeking extension of time or mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, filed after the expiry of the period contemplated under Section 29A(1) and 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not bar the Court from granting a suitable extension of time to the Arbitral Tribunal – Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd. – Delhi High Court

In view of the legal position enunciated in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., (2024) ibclaw.in 233 SC and Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager and Anr., (2024) ibclaw.in 306 SC, the fact that the application seeking extension of time / mandate of the arbitral tribunal has been filed after the expiry of the period of time contemplated in Section 29A(1) and 29A(3) of the A&C Act, shall not be an impediment to this Court granting suitable extension of time to the Arbitral Tribunal for the purpose of completion of arbitral proceedings.

An application, seeking extension of time or mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, filed after the expiry of the period contemplated under Section 29A(1) and 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not bar the Court from granting a suitable extension of time to the Arbitral Tribunal – Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Limitation for filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC shall start not from the date when it was uploaded by the NCLT on its website but from the date when the order was pronounced – Tarandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Ors. Vs. One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) The limitation shall start not from the date when it was uploaded but from the date when the order was pronounced.
(ii) The period of limitation is to be counted from the date of pronouncement of the order in court on 03.07.2024 and in that process if the limitation is counted then it goes beyond the period of 15 days which cannot be condoned in any manner.

Limitation for filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC shall start not from the date when it was uploaded by the NCLT on its website but from the date when the order was pronounced – Tarandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Ors. Vs. One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Part payment/ Loan recall notice/ SARFEASI notice/ legal notice cannot shift the date of default – State Bank of India Vs. Vivimed Labs Ltd. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Bengaluru Bench held that:

(i) Any subsequent development like part payment/ loan recall notice/SARFEASI notice would not change the event of default which had already occurred. This is in view of the Proviso to section 10A of IBC; due to which no application u/s. 7,9 or 10 can ever be filed if the default has already occurred during the period specified u/s.10A of the Code.
(ii) The same Financial Creditor cannot take an altogether different stand in this case; as against the argument made by them before NCLAT in a case.
(iii) The interpretation of a statutory enactment cannot be allowed to be made in such a manner which acts towards making it meaningless and redundant.

Part payment/ Loan recall notice/ SARFEASI notice/ legal notice cannot shift the date of default – State Bank of India Vs. Vivimed Labs Ltd. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Login
Scroll to Top