Evirant Developers Pvt. Ltd.

The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with | In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Others – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) The date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement.
(ii) The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with.
(iii) In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order. Such an approach would be a violation of the NCLT Rules, which create a distinction between hearing and pronouncement and do not allow the NCLT to dispense with the requirement of pronouncement.
(iv) The Hon’ble Court appreciates the swift action taken by the NCLAT in view of the above observations. On 15 May 2023, soon after the decision in Sanket Agarwal (supra), an order was issued by the Registrar, NCLAT. Such proactive action by tribunals is essential to ensure that the move towards a modernized and technology-friendly judiciary trickles down to every judicial forum across the country. We record our appreciation of the proactive steps taken by the Chairperson, Members and the Registry of the NCLAT

The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with | In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Others – Supreme Court Read Post »

The scope and jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under IBC being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate, Suspended Director of Evirant Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) It is a settled proposition of law that to prove any transaction to be collusive and fraudulent in nature, the degree of proof and evidence required should be of unimpeachable nature and beyond reasonable doubt.
(ii) The scope and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance which have been agitated in the IA.
(iii) Allowing such meritless and unscrupulous litigation would logically entail derailing the insolvency resolution process which goes against the twin objectives of the IBC of maximization of the value of assets and time-bound insolvency resolution.
(iv) There is no infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the Financial Creditor having successfully proved the financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, Section 7 application has been admitted.
(v) Even if for arguments sake we accept the contention raised by the Appellant that there were serious internal disputes amongst the Respondents that cannot be a cogent and reasonable ground for denying the Financial Creditor their right to claim payment towards the debt owed to them by the Corporate Debtor.

The scope and jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under IBC being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate, Suspended Director of Evirant Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top