03/07/2024

CoC is empowered to take decision to liquidate although judicial review is permitted to said decision but there have to be adequate ground to interfere with said decision by the Court in exercise of judicial review – Sh. Sudhir Kumar Awasthi Vs. Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 3 minutes of reading

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

CoC is empowered to take decision to liquidate although judicial review is permitted to said decision but there have to be adequate ground to interfere with said decision by the Court in exercise of judicial review – Sh. Sudhir Kumar Awasthi Vs. Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLAT has no jurisdiction to condone the period of delay beyond the total period of 90 days under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Kailash Sinhal and Anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 4 minutes of reading

In the present case the appeal has been filed after a delay of 185 days.

Hon’ble NCLAT held that neither the application is maintainable nor this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone the period of delay beyond the total period of 90 days.

NCLAT has no jurisdiction to condone the period of delay beyond the total period of 90 days under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Kailash Sinhal and Anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Unless a Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ought not to be exercised – Mr. Rajan Chadha and Anr. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Arora and Anr. – Delhi High Court

/ 39 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
(i) To punish a contemnor, the disobedience should be willful. Element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to hold a party guilty of contempt. It has been held time and again that contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts, and the said proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof required in these proceedings, is beyond all reasonable doubt.
(ii) Since the company is undergoing CIRP, all the assets and management of the company are with the Resolution Professional. Further, the liability of loan installments, in the form of claim submitted by the South Indian Bank, is also with the Resolution Professional. Thus, the respondent no. 1 has no control over the assets, management and liabilities of the Company. Thus, it is manifest that the R1 has been unable to pay the EMIs to the bank due to his financial inability and constraints, due to circumstances, as brought forth before this Court.

Unless a Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ought not to be exercised – Mr. Rajan Chadha and Anr. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Arora and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top