947

Tribunal grants permission to hold EGM for appointment of Directors on an application filed under Section 98 of the Companies Act, 2013 by shareholder – VTP Technologies Pty. Ltd. Vs. Contrivers Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

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

Tribunal grants permission to hold EGM for appointment of Directors on an application filed under Section 98 of the Companies Act, 2013 by shareholder – VTP Technologies Pty. Ltd. Vs. Contrivers Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

The period of 30 days from receipt of the notice issued Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 by the borrower has lapsed, Borrower does not have a chance to redeem – Naba Kumar Dutta Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Calcutta High Court

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the law permits the borrower to redeem the mortgage up to the date of publication of the notice for public auction. Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 grants this opportunity to the borrower by mandating the authorized officer to serve a notice of 30 days for sale of the immovable secured asset under sub-rule (5). This was the stage where the borrower could raise all his objections, including the objection with regard to the reserve price and also exercise his option to redeem the mortgage. After this exercise is over and the period of 30 days from receipt of the notice by the borrower had lapsed, the borrower does not have a chance to redeem. Once the publication was made, the borrower did not have any chance. Once he was given a chance to redeem the mortgage by matching the price, all requirements had been complied with.

The period of 30 days from receipt of the notice issued Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 by the borrower has lapsed, Borrower does not have a chance to redeem – Naba Kumar Dutta Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Whether Resolution Professional is entitled for the same fee as was fixed by the CoC without doing any work? – RP of Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. Vs. COC Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The only contention of Mr. Partho Sarkar, counsel appearing for the RP is that even though the COC has resolved to replace the RP in the third COC meeting held on 18.07.2019, no such application was filed by the COC for change of RP and therefore the present RP is entitled for the agreed fee till the RP was discharged through an order of this tribunal. In the present application, the RP is claiming an amount @ 3.75 lacs per month both for himself and his team besides expenses in a sum of Rs. 1,68,60,372/- without doing any work. The RP cannot claim fee by taking advantage of the inaction of the COC in filing an application for his replacement nor on certain observations made in MA 3399/2019 as the above MA was filed for fee and expenses during the active period of CIRP.

Whether Resolution Professional is entitled for the same fee as was fixed by the CoC without doing any work? – RP of Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. Vs. COC Jogma Laminates Industry (P) Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

NCLAT dismisses prayer for adjournment – Oyster Steel and Iron Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SMW Metal Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

On 10.03.2022 the present appeal stood dismissed due to repeated non-appearance of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Subsequently, after dismissal of the appeal restoration petition was filed which was allowed on 08.08.2022 and thereafter the appeal was restored to its original file. After the appeal was restored, this is second occasion when prayer is being made for adjournment. The prayer for adjournment now may not be entertained. The Appeal stands dismissed due to non- prosecution.

NCLAT dismisses prayer for adjournment – Oyster Steel and Iron Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SMW Metal Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top