Max Estates Ltd. Vs. Amit Agarwal RP of Boulevard Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Smt. Rajni Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Rajasthan High Court Read Post »
In this case, Liquidator has raised objections regarding the continuation of proceedings before the EPFO Authority in view of the moratorium in terms of Section 33(5) of IBC being in force by NCLT Chandigarh Bench order dated 10.10.2018. Ignoring the objections made, the EPFO Authority have ordered levy of damages for belated remittance made during the period 21.01.2016 to 31.03.2020 and Rs.11,18,184/- was directed to be deposited within 15 days under Section 14(b) and in another order under Section 17(q) an amount of Rs.5,71,768/- was demanded.
NCLT Chandigarh Bench referred Section 238 of IBC and held that:
(i) The EPFO Authorities have not filed their claim during the period of CIRP and also during the period of liquidation. The EPFO Authorities has failed to take steps to ensure compliance with the timeline provided under IB Code.
(ii) We do not find any good ground or reason to entertain the claim at this stage of dissolution, as liquidator has already sold asset and distributed it among the stakeholders.
(iii) However, the EPFO Authorities are entitled to pursue their claims, if permitted by law.
(iv) Te claims of EPFO pertaining to the period of moratorium cannot be entertained in terms of provision of IB Code, 2016.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Harinder Dhingra Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Deepak Kulkarni Vs. Bank of Maharashtra – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application for claim observing that alleged sale deed is neither registered nor stamped, cannot be looked for any purpose. NCLAT held that we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly taken the view that such kind of sale deed which is neither registered nor stamped and was executed before Notary cannot be basis for any claim with regard to the purchase of immovable property as claimed by the Appellant.
The Liquidator made payer to quash and set-aside certain summons/orders of attachment by the Enforcement Directorate during the investigation of the PMLA case registered against the Corporate Debtor and its officers.
NCLT held that the summons/orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate/Adjudicating Authority /Appellate Authority under that law are related to some investigation about the affairs of the Corporate Debtor and its officers prior to the CIRP. It has no relation of whatsoever nature about the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor or its liquidation process. The prayers as made therein are not maintainable before this Adjudicating Authority invoking provisions under section 60(5(c) of the IBC, 2016. Hence, applications to that extent need to be rejected.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Narendra Kumar Dhoot Vs. M/s Premier Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
M/s U Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »