Ronnie Baath Suspended Board of Director of JCT Ltd. Vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. 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
K. Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »
Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Both parties being partners in developing the project together, the purchase and availability of land for the project was an essential ingredient thereof and hence any assistance by the Appellant to the Respondent tantamount to financing the operations of the joint venture.
(ii) The present transaction is in the nature of investment for profit and not disbursement for time value of money and hence does not fall within the canvas of financial debt as defined under Section 5(8) of the IBC.
(iii) The Appellant is not a Financial Creditor in terms of Section 5(7) of IBC and the application under Section 7 at the instance of the Appellant was not maintainable and hence the same has been rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.
NCLT Mumbai Bench held that as the resolution plan has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors comprised of the Applicant and the Respondent No.01, the whole exercise of discarding the valuation reports prepared by the registered valuers and calling for a fresh valuation report has become meaningless. No doubt, under Regulation 35(1)(b) the resolution professional may, on receipt of a proposal from the committee of creditors, appoint a third registered valuer for an asset class for submitting an estimate of the value computed in the manner provided in Reg. 35(1)(a). The inter se differences being mutually resolved by the parties herein, we are of the considered opinion that this I.A. should be dismissed as having become infructuous as the whole exercise of seeking a fresh valuation report would be an exercise in futility.
Hon’ble High Corut held that in the absence of essential factors giving rise to estoppel having been fulfilled, in our considered opinion, the doctrine of estoppel has no application to the facts of the case. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant was entitled to take a stand that the dispute is arbitrable by filing an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, as such a plea became available to him due to subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited (supra).
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
M/s Paragon Ceramics Vs. Rathi Ispat Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Harso Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Borkar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »
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
Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde – Supreme Court Read Post »