896

Whether Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after expiration of the period under Section 29A(1) and/or 29A(3) – ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) The purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act was clearly not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent extension of time even where warranted, simply because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.
(ii) Although the recommendation/s of the Law Commission or Parliamentary Standing Committees afford extrinsic guidance for interpretation of statutory provisions in certain situations, there are also limitations on such reliance.
(iii) The Court would take a suitable decision upon a petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act being filed. Such a petition can be filed either before expiry of the period referred to under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act or even thereafter.
(iv) To deny extension of time in such a case, only because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiry of the period set out in Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act besides being in the teeth of the language of Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act, seriously undermines the efficacy of the arbitral process and also impinges on party autonomy.
(v) Disagreement with the judgment of Rohan Builders.

Whether Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after expiration of the period under Section 29A(1) and/or 29A(3) – ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Resolution Professional has vested with the power to revise the claim on the basis of the documents on record – Bharat Bhushan, Proprietor of Sai Traders Vs. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI

NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI held that:
(i) CIRP Regulation 14(2) provides as to how the claim amount has to be determined.
(ii) The RP has vested with the power to revise the claim on the basis of the documents on record.
(iii) upon re-verification, it was found that the Applicant had not disclosed the facts of raising various debit notes, by the corporate debtors. It is stated by the RP that after adjusting the Debit Notes raised by the Corporate Debtors, the Ledger Accounts maintained by the Corporate Debtor in regard to the Applicant shows a balance payment of INR 34,049.19 only and the same was revised as per law.
(iv) the RP has not acted ultra vires, and we see no arbitrariness or illegality in the verification process followed by the Resolution Professional.

Resolution Professional has vested with the power to revise the claim on the basis of the documents on record – Bharat Bhushan, Proprietor of Sai Traders Vs. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI Read Post »

Advance paid for services is Operation Debt u/s 5(21) of IBC even no contract could be entered into between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor – Chipsan Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punj Llyod Aviation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The definition u/s 5(21) of IBC defines Operational Debt as a claim in respect of the PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES. The expression ‘goods and services’ is preceded with the word ‘in respect of’. The materials on record does indicate that advance of Rs.60 lakhs was given by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor for availing the aviation services and with regard to which, however, no contract could be entered into between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor. There has been repeated correspondence as encapsulated in the complaint, which indicate that there has been correspondence and various requests from the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor with regard to goods and services. Thus, the correspondence as encapsulated shows that an amount of Rs.60 lakhs was advanced for providing goods and services to the Corporate Debtor. Neither goods and services could be provided, nor any Agreement could be entered between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor as noted above.

Advance paid for services is Operation Debt u/s 5(21) of IBC even no contract could be entered into between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor – Chipsan Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punj Llyod Aviation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top