705

The issue of the extent of Limited Guarantee is to be decided at the time of finalisation of Payment Plan, not at Section 95 application admission stage – Nilay R. Shah Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Personal Guarantor challenged insolvency admission order passed under Section 95 of IBC on the ground of limited Guarantee.

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that the Application has only been admitted and the payments Plan have yet to be finalised. The said question is to be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of finalisation of the payment Plan.

The issue of the extent of Limited Guarantee is to be decided at the time of finalisation of Payment Plan, not at Section 95 application admission stage – Nilay R. Shah Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Operational Creditor being a participant in the meeting of the committee of creditors (CoC) has no right to seek a copy of the Information Memorandum(IM) – Vinay Kumar Singhal RP for PG Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Bajaj – NCLAT New Delhi

The issue involved in this case is as to whether copy of information memorandum can be ordered to be given to the Respondent (Operational Creditor) who is merely a participant in the CoC and not a member?

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) There is no definition of member provided in the Code or the Regulations which has been repeatedly used in the Code as well as Regulations.
(ii) The Code and Regulations are totally silent about the supply of the information memorandum to the participant, it has to be inferred that the legislature has made a provision for providing a copy of the information memorandum to the member of the CoC and the Resolution Applicant but not to the participant of the meeting of the CoC
(iii) The Operational Creditor being a participant in the meeting of the CoC has no right to seek a copy of the information memorandum.

Operational Creditor being a participant in the meeting of the committee of creditors (CoC) has no right to seek a copy of the Information Memorandum(IM) – Vinay Kumar Singhal RP for PG Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Bajaj – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Once an evidence is allowed as relevant during the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator cannot refrain from analyzing and appreciating its evidentiary value for a given dispute – Image Infotainment Ltd. Vs. Labour India Public School and Junior College – Madras High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Once an evidence is allowed as relevant during the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator cannot refrain from analyzing and appreciating its evidentiary value for a given dispute – Image Infotainment Ltd. Vs. Labour India Public School and Junior College – Madras High Court Read Post »

TDS paid by Corporate Debtor on interest payable cannot be considered as acknowledgment in writing of the liability by the Corporate Debtor – P.M. Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Interim Resolution Professional Vs. Goouksheer Farm Fresh Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that since the voting share in the CoC is extremely relevant and important element in the CIRP insofar as the insolvency resolution of the CD is concerned. It was the duty of the RP to exercise necessary care and diligence in verifying the claims and scrutinise the documents submitted with Form C for genuineness and authenticity. Such exercise does not appear to have been done by the RP in the present case. We would, therefore, urge the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to investigate this matter further regarding the conduct of RP and take necessary action under the regulation.

TDS paid by Corporate Debtor on interest payable cannot be considered as acknowledgment in writing of the liability by the Corporate Debtor – P.M. Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Interim Resolution Professional Vs. Goouksheer Farm Fresh Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Claim based on an agreement where the Petitioner has appointed the Respondent as a “Contractor” to collect toll tax from commercial vehicles is not covered under Operational Debt – South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT held that the claim is based on an Agreement where the Petitioner has appointed the Respondent as a “Contractor” to collect toll tax from commercial vehicles. Therefore, it is clear to the Bench that Petitioner is not providing any goods or services to the Respondent and to that extent is not covered under the definition of Operational Debt u/s 5(21). The Bench is of the view that, amount recoverable as ‘arrears of tax’ is quite different from ‘tax arising under statute’. The Bench is of the view that what is covered in Section 5(21) is ‘tax arising under the statute’ which is not the same thing as any due which only for the recovery mechanism is termed as “an arrear of tax”. The Bench is of the view that, what is covered under Section 5(21) is the dues which are arising under the statute and not dues which are recoverable as arrears of tax.

Claim based on an agreement where the Petitioner has appointed the Respondent as a “Contractor” to collect toll tax from commercial vehicles is not covered under Operational Debt – South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top