844

It is permissible for High Court, notwithstanding what Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 says, to weed out ex-facie time barred claims at the stage of deciding whether or not to make a reference in a Sec. 11(6) application – GNG Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of HP and another – Himachal Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh referred the judgments in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 41 SC and Ramachanraiah and Sons (2021) ibclaw.in 48 SC and held that:
(i) It is permissible for the High Court, notwithstanding what subsection (6-A) of Section 11 says, to weed out ex-facie time barred claims at the stage of deciding whether or not to make a reference in a Sec.11(6) application; and in a very limited category of cases, where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is ex facie time-barred, or that the dispute is non-arbitrable, the court may decline to make the reference.
(ii) However, if there is even the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration.
(iii) The arbitration application u/s 11(6) has been dismissed.

It is permissible for High Court, notwithstanding what Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 says, to weed out ex-facie time barred claims at the stage of deciding whether or not to make a reference in a Sec. 11(6) application – GNG Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of HP and another – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Where moratorium has been imposed on the assets of the corporate debtor under the Code, no action can be taken against its assets under any other statute by virtue of section 238 of the Code – Mr. Abhilash Lal, RP of Sevenhills Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of Collector, Mumbai – NCLT Amaravati Bench

The counsel for the applicant relies on a judgment of NCLT, Kolkata in Ram Ratan Modi (RP of Duncans Industries Ltd.) Vs. ICICI Bank (Darjeeling Branch) (2021) ibclaw.in 71 NCLT, wherein it was held that section 238 of the Code makes it clear that the provision of the Code will override other laws. Moreover, upon enactment of the code, several statutes were amended to the effect, Income Tax Act, 1962, being one of them, was amended vide third schedule of the Code. Therefore, in such a scenario, where moratorium has been imposed on the assets of the corporate debtor under the Code and no action can be taken against its assets under any other statute by virtue of section 238 of the Code, and the claims of the authorities having already been admitted by the Applicant, not de-freezing the account of corporate debtor would not only be antithetical to the Code but also averse to the principle of equity.

Where moratorium has been imposed on the assets of the corporate debtor under the Code, no action can be taken against its assets under any other statute by virtue of section 238 of the Code – Mr. Abhilash Lal, RP of Sevenhills Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of Collector, Mumbai – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »

Even if some of the homebuyers have not voted in favour of the plan they have to sail with the majority – Earth Buyers Association for Justice Vs. Mr. Akash Singhal, RP for Earth Infrastructure Limited & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Even if some of the homebuyers have not voted in favour of the plan they have to sail with the majority – Earth Buyers Association for Justice Vs. Mr. Akash Singhal, RP for Earth Infrastructure Limited & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top