Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rampur Engineering Corporation Ltd. – Delhi High Court
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
Rajiv Bajaj, RP of Inox Tubes Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Dr Gopala Krishnan Ms and Anr Vs. Ravindra Beleyur and Anr – Supreme Court Read Post »
Important judgment on power and duties of RP on verification claim.
In this case, it is submitted that RP could not have asked for proof of service as that would amount to adjudication of claims which is beyond the scope of the RP’s jurisdiction.
Hon’ble NCLAT holds that:
(i) When claims are submitted to the RP, even though there are no adjudicatory powers vested on the RP in respect of the claims filed before him, it remains undisputed that there is an express provision in the CIRP Regulations which enables RP to seek information towards establishment of the correctness of a claim.
(ii) If credible and satisfactory evidence is not forthcoming from the creditor in spite of adequate opportunity made available to provide the same, the RP can always keep in abeyance the decision to accept/reject the said claim.
(iii) By merely filing their claims, the creditor cannot rest on its oars and refrain from providing further evidence if it so sought by the RP by taking shelter on the ground that the RP lacks adjudicating powers. If such basic verification is not done, the logical corollary is that the Information Memorandum is likely to be defective and flawed thereby having consequential adverse impact on the CIRP process.
(iv) Examining the validity/sustainability of any contractual agreement including its formatting etc lies outside the purview of the charter of duties and responsibilities of the RP.
(v) That being so the RP is very much required to undertake appropriate verification and analysis of the claims filed. RP cannot afford to be unmindful of the fact that he is expected to assist in the CIRP process in a fair and objective manner in the best interest of all stakeholders.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Pothys Vs. S.A. Kumar and Ors. – Madras High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prashant Pranjal and Ors. – UP REAT Read Post »
In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) A writ court cannot direct the Government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame.
(ii) There is no right vested in the applicant to claim that the Law Commission set up by the Central Government should be given constitutional or statutory status.
(iii) Whether a nodal officer, who is well qualified in law, in each department, to note down the Courts’ recommendations to bring to the knowledge of the Policy¬-Makers of each department by way of periodical reports should be appointed or not, is a matter to be decided by the Central Government.
(iv) The law regarding power of the writ court to issue a mandate to the legislature to legislate is well settled. No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of either amending the existing law or coming out with a new law.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Sushma Paranjpe Vs. Rohan Developers 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
Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here