02/04/2024

NCLT does not have any jurisdiction over Cooperative Society to issue direction under the provisions of the Companies Act or SEBI as per the provisions of the Companies Act for refund of the deposit amount – Binod Kumar Vs. Sahara India Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Allahabad Bench

The respondent parties with whom the deposits have been made by the petitioner, are not companies but Cooperative Society on which this tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to issue direction under the provisions of the Companies Act, therefore, no direction can be issued by this tribunal either to the respondent parties or SEBI as per the provisions of the Companies Act for refund of the deposit amount.

NCLT does not have any jurisdiction over Cooperative Society to issue direction under the provisions of the Companies Act or SEBI as per the provisions of the Companies Act for refund of the deposit amount – Binod Kumar Vs. Sahara India Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Allahabad Bench Read Post »

Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not vest powers in NCLAT to appoint any third person as Administrator to carry out Investigation | The non-compliances with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 does not constitute oppressive act or mismanagement of affairs of the Company – Dr. Dipen Kailash Chandra Agarawal and Others Vs. Nag Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:

(i) Powers vested under section 213 pertains to direction for investigation into the affairs of the Company and such investigation is to be carried out by the person appointed by the Central Government.
(ii) Public Interest, in the context of Section 8 Companies has wider import and encompasses the Company and its members within its ambit as Section 8 companies are meant to be non-profit making organisation where the members are barred from taking any benefit from such company in any manner.

Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not vest powers in NCLAT to appoint any third person as Administrator to carry out Investigation | The non-compliances with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 does not constitute oppressive act or mismanagement of affairs of the Company – Dr. Dipen Kailash Chandra Agarawal and Others Vs. Nag Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

The essential ingredients of Financial Debt in the context of IBC consists of disbursal accompanied by consideration for time value of money | Time value of money covers any other form of benefit or value accruing to the creditor as a return for providing money for a long duration – Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala Vs. Awaita Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) When a Financial Creditor who has disbursed money to a Corporate Debtor against consideration for time value of money can trigger the insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor.
(ii) The concept of time value of money has nowhere been defined in the IBC. Time value of money is not only a regular or timely return received for the duration for which the amount is disbursed as an amount in addition to the principal, but also covers any other form of benefit or value accruing to the creditor as a return for providing money for a long duration.
(iii) Once the Adjudicating Authority is subjectively satisfied that there is a debt and a default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor and the Section 7 application is complete in all respects, the Adjudicating Authority in the exercise of summary jurisdiction has to admit the Section 7 application. In our considered view, this is a case where all the pre-requisites for filing a Section 7 stood fulfilled and the Adjudicating Authority cannot be held to have committed an error in admitting the Corporate Debtor into CIRP for having defaulted in repaying a financial debt which was above the threshold limit.

The essential ingredients of Financial Debt in the context of IBC consists of disbursal accompanied by consideration for time value of money | Time value of money covers any other form of benefit or value accruing to the creditor as a return for providing money for a long duration – Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala Vs. Awaita Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top