A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd

The Adjudicating Authority/NCLT which is hearing the case under the IBC does not have jurisdiction to impose a penalty under the Companies Act, 2013- Ashish Chaturvedi Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT holds that the Adjudicating Authority has imposed the penalty on the two ex-directors by invoking provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and thus passed the Impugned Order by travelling beyond their jurisdiction, we are of the view that since the IA No. 1253/2020 was filed under the provisions of IBC, it would have served the requirement of law if any order regarding the penalty was imposed under the provisions of IBC. Moreover, it would have served the cause of natural justice if the Appellants were given an opportunity to be heard before imposition of any penalty. Chapter VII of the IBC which lays down “Offences and Penalties” under which officers of the Corporate Debtor can be penalized and/or punished with imprisonment is relevant in this regard.

The Adjudicating Authority/NCLT which is hearing the case under the IBC does not have jurisdiction to impose a penalty under the Companies Act, 2013- Ashish Chaturvedi Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Once a homebuyer receives a decree from RERA, the same cannot be brought for execution by invoking Section 7 of the IBC Mr. Rohit Tole Vs. Mantri Developers Private Limited – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

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

Once a homebuyer receives a decree from RERA, the same cannot be brought for execution by invoking Section 7 of the IBC Mr. Rohit Tole Vs. Mantri Developers Private Limited – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Excluded time period of CIRP due to delayed in communicating the order of the Adjudicating Authority to the IRP as well as to the Corporate Debtor by the office of the Adjudicating Authority – Ashish Chaturvedi Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. – NCLAT

NCLAT held that a glance of the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 indicates that the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 05.12.2018 was not communicated to the IRP as well as to the Corporate Debtor by the office of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT III New Delhi), due to inadvertence. In this connection, this Tribunal relatively pointed out that ‘Maxim’, ‘Actus’, ‘Curiae’, ‘Neminem’, ‘Gravabit’ i.e. Act of the Court shall harm no Home-Sapien. Owing to an inadvertent omission on the part of the ‘Registry’ of the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, the order dated 05.01.2018 of the said Authority was not communicated to the ‘IRP’ as well as to the Corporate Debtor. In this backdrop the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (NCLT, New Delhi Bench –III) had rightly allowed the Application filed by the 2nd Respondent by passing the impugned order dated 10.12.2019, which is free from any legal infirmities.

Excluded time period of CIRP due to delayed in communicating the order of the Adjudicating Authority to the IRP as well as to the Corporate Debtor by the office of the Adjudicating Authority – Ashish Chaturvedi Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top