Yogesh Sethi Official Liquidator of SSMP Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. – 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
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Meera Dhanuka Vs. Bank of India and Anr. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
In this case, the Appellant placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 91 SC submits that the Adjudicating Authority has discretionary power, which should have been used in rejecting the application.
Hon’ble NCLAT holds that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidarbha was on its own facts and the said judgment does not apply in the present case.
There is a tripartite agreement between each of the Financial Creditors (Purchaser of invoice receivables) herein, the said Minion ventures Pvt Ltd (Platform provider for routing the stated transactions) and the Corporate Debtor (Seller of Invoice Receivables). The financial creditors who have provided a discounted value to the Corporate Debtor, realise their returns on their loans when the customer pays the full value of the said invoice(s).
An application under Sec 7 of IBC 2016 has been filed by Invoice Discounters of Riva Perfumes LLP represented by Minion Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority refers Minions Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TDT Copper Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 209 NCLAT and holds that the intention of the transaction is not for a financial debt but an investment, and it was made on a portal where the invoices are discounted by various investors, which is not maintainable under Section 7 of the IBC. Hence, the application is dismissed.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Sachin Gupta and Ors. Vs. Paras Ram Chandel – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Rajiv Saini Vs. Aadhar Infraholding Ltd. – UP REAT Read Post »
The Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. The respondent Bank thereafter withdrew the notice dated 03.04.2018 and issued a fresh notice on 03.01.2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, however the Bank mentioned the balance outstanding as on date of NPA 31.03.2018 as 14,34,08,824.52/- without giving break up of principal and interest amount outstanding from the respondent Bank. Hon’ble High Court held that there is a good prima facie case in favour of the petitioners as the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Therefore for the purpose of granting interim relief during the pendency of the securitisation application, this petition is allowed and the respondent Bank is restrained from taking any possession of the secured assets of the petitioners pursuant to the notice dated 03.01.2022 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the action under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act till the final disposal of the Securitisation Application No.436 of 2022 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here