G. Rathinavelu Vs. Mr. Shriraam Shekhar RP of INMA International Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai
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 […]
Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that no doubt, Applicant being the Creditor of Company is entitled to restore the name of the Company but this is not suffice. The Company has not appeared and it implies that it does not want to restore the Company. The Applicant wants to restore the Company only to claim the amount due to it from the Company. For this, the Applicant can file recovery suit and not to get the Company’s name restored. For restoration of the Company, certain statutory requirements are also to be fulfilled i.e. filing of Financial Statements, which cannot be done by the Applicant.
In this important judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that
(i) The Commercial Courts Act 2015 and Civil Procedure Code (CPC) do not contain any provision providing for different treatment for any counter-claim.
(ii) The opposite party in counter-claim, thus, gets an ‘indefeasible legal right to participate in mediation’ prior to the institution of counter-claim.
(iii) Merely because, such option was availed/ attempted to be availed in the initial stage and proved to be unsuccessful or returned non-starter, would not suggest and signify that any counter-claimant can straightaway file a commercial suit, not contemplating any urgent relief.
(iv) Process of pre-institution mediation is mandatory for every suit involving a commercial suit and no distinction can be drawn when it comes to a counter-claim involving a commercial dispute and not contemplating any urgent relief. As per the mandate of Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 101 SC, any such suit, which has been filed without taking recourse of Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
In this case, IRP filed IA that orders/consignments sent through Department of Posts which had been neither delivered to customers nor returned to origin, and there were also orders which had been delivered and for which COD amount stood collected. Thereafter, during Liquidation, the NRRA sold to Buyer.
Writ petition filed by buyer was dismissed by Single Judge Bench of High Court holding that it was not open for the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India for recovery of outstanding dues, as the proceedings in respect of the same are already pending consideration before the NCLT.
In LPA, Division Bench dismissed the petition.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Lala Saurabh Verma Vs. Technotech Synergy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Jotindra Steel and Tubes – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Products 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