Jitender Kumar Jain, Liquidator of Roofit Industries Ltd. Vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation – NCLAT New Delhi
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Hon’ble High Court held that the sole arbitrator has not considered Section 17 of the Sale of Goods Act, before awarding unliquidated damages in favour of the respondent. The Arbitrator in the impugned Arbitral Award has not considered Sections 16, 17 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 in the proper perspective while adjudicating the dispute between the parties. If Sections 16, 17 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 were taken into consideration by the Sole Arbitrator, there is a possibility that the unliquidated damages claim of the respondent against the petitioner may fail.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
NCLAT held that Section 14(2) has to be read with the legislative intent, which is now reflected by Explanation to Section 14(1) and 14(2A). In the facts of the present case, when Corporate Debtor took a decision that supply of electricity is necessary to make the value of Corporate Debtor as has been specifically pleaded in IA No.1661 of 2021, the Corporate Debtor is obliged to make payment. When the Corporate Debtor has opined that supply of electricity is essential and is to be continued by the Respondent, it is also under obligation to make payment of electricity dues of the CIRP period and direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority to make the payment of outstanding dues, cannot be faulted.
NCLT is surprised to see a Liquidator in the advocate’s uniform though he was acting in his capacity as the Liquidator (only) of the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s Super Agri Seeds Pvt. Ltd. NCLT had requested him to clarify being an advocate, whether the Advocates Act prohibits a person from pursuing two professions simultaneously, i.e., one as an advocate and another as something else. How could he wear bands and argue before this court in his capacity as a Liquidator but not as a Counsel for the Liquidator?
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Telephone Cables Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »