892

NCLT permits Successful Auction Bidder to withdraw from e-auction process of Liquidation due to attachment under PMLA Act, 2002 – M/s. Lucky Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain (Liquidator of PSL Ltd.) – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

In this case, an application is filed by Successful Auction Bidder of the corporate debtor for permission to withdraw from the e-auction process being held by the liquidator. The applicant had offered to purchase the corporate debtor as a going concern as per the sale notice dated 08.04.2021. The liquidator was aware that proceeding under the PMLA Act, 2002 was initiated and the assets of the corporate debtor were likely to be attached, still, he held the e-auction. NCLT held that the stark facts on record are that the liquidator is not in a position to give the custody of assets of the corporate debtor to the applicant or give possession of the corporate debtor as a going concern to the applicant in spite of him being declared as a successful bidder and the applicant being deposited a sum of Rs. 30 crores with the liquidator. The Liquidator cannot withhold the amount for an indefinite period till proceeding under PMLA Act, 2002 is concluded before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In such a situation, we allow this application.

NCLT permits Successful Auction Bidder to withdraw from e-auction process of Liquidation due to attachment under PMLA Act, 2002 – M/s. Lucky Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain (Liquidator of PSL Ltd.) – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

No prohibition can be read in the statutory provision governing appearance of an Advocate in representing a different company in separate proceedings filed under Section 7 – Anand Varma, Advocate Vs. Piyush Periwal & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that when we look into the above Rules, it is clear that Rule 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, prohibits an Advocate appearing for a party, not to act or appear or plead for the opposite party in a suit, appeal or other matter. The present is not a case where the Appellant can be said to have violated Rule 33. ‘Damayanti Tea Industries’ being a separate company and has initiated separate proceeding under Section 7 against different Corporate Debtor and appearance of the Appellant in that proceeding in no manner can be said to be in breach of any Rules of Etiquette or can lead to any conflict of interest in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The very basis of the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority is unfounded.

No prohibition can be read in the statutory provision governing appearance of an Advocate in representing a different company in separate proceedings filed under Section 7 – Anand Varma, Advocate Vs. Piyush Periwal & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top