Associate Décor Ltd.

An unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law – Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Vs. Farooq Ali Khan and Ors. – Supreme Court

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

An unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law – Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Vs. Farooq Ali Khan and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Resolution Professional shall give notice of each meeting of CoC as per CIRP Regulation 19(2) even in case of adjournment of meeting where agenda modified | Reasons should be recorded in writing in case any reduction of notice time limit – Mr. Farooq Ali Khan v. Punjab National Bank – Karnataka High Court

In this case, on 11-02-2020 at 12.20 pm an e-mail is sent communicating that the second meeting of 19th CoC which was sought to be adjourned on 10-02-2020 is scheduled on the same day i.e., 11-02-2020 at 3.00 p.m.

Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) Section 24(3) mandates that the Resolution professional shall give notice of each meeting of the CoC. The section does not depict the manner in which notice should be given. It only indicates that notice shall be given of each meeting to the CoC. In the considered view of this Court, ‘each’ would mean each and every.
(ii) The time limit for issuance of notice of meeting was reducible to 24 hours. This should be in the considered view of the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, as the words used are ‘as it deems fit’.
(iii) This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not enter into venturing a fact finding enquiry to examine whether the resolution professional has acted in accordance with the duties and responsibilities under the Act.
(iv) Reserve liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation/complaint before the Board within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and if such a complaint is received, the Board would decide the issue, in accordance with law.
(v) The CoC shall reconsider the restructuring proposal submitted on behalf of the petitioner in terms of Section 12A of the Code.

Resolution Professional shall give notice of each meeting of CoC as per CIRP Regulation 19(2) even in case of adjournment of meeting where agenda modified | Reasons should be recorded in writing in case any reduction of notice time limit – Mr. Farooq Ali Khan v. Punjab National Bank – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

The claim of Applicant would not be considered to have first charge at par with secured creditors under the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, Section 82 of CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017 – Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Mr. Alok Kailash Saksena RP of Associate Décor Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

Hon’ble NCLAT concurred the observations made in the order of NCLT Bengaluru Bench to the effect that the claim of Applicant, would not be considered to have first charge at par with secured creditors under the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, Section 82 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 and that Section 20 of the IGST Act provides that certain provisions of CGST Act inter alia, those falling under Demands and recovery section of CGST Act shall, mutatis mutandis apply so far as may be, in relation to IGST, as they apply in relation to the Central Tax, as if they are enacted under the IGST Act etc. and that apart a specific exception to the provisions of the Code was prescribed in the aforesaid provisions, and expressly providing and overriding effect to the IBC, and held that are free from any legal errors.

The claim of Applicant would not be considered to have first charge at par with secured creditors under the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, Section 82 of CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017 – Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Mr. Alok Kailash Saksena RP of Associate Décor Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Whether the claim can be admitted by the RP suo-motu irrespective of non-filing of claim? – CoC of Associated Décor Ltd. through Union Bank of India Vs. State of Karnataka – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that There is no such provision that the IRP, shall admit the Claim without filing a Claim Form either in Form-B or in Form-C. Therefore, this Tribunal, is of the considered view, that the IRP, suo-motu cannot admit the Claims without their being a Claim by the Claimants viz. Operational Creditors, Financial Creditors and Claims by other Creditors. Every Claim shall be submitted by the Claimant with proof. NCLAT also held that claim of the 1st Respondent herein is belated and cannot be considered and the finding of the Adjudicating Authority in directing the RP to place the claim in Form-C before CoC per se illegal and unsustainable accordingly, the point is answered against the 1st Respondent.

Whether the claim can be admitted by the RP suo-motu irrespective of non-filing of claim? – CoC of Associated Décor Ltd. through Union Bank of India Vs. State of Karnataka – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top