03/10/2024

Provisions of Section 14 of the limitation Act will not be attracted for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC – Hero Exports Vs. Mr. K. Vasudevan RP, Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

When under the statute, the power of review or recall is not vested with an authority created under law, the same would not be maintainable and in these eventualities the recall or a review petition cannot be treated as to be a proceeding in continuation to the principal proceeding, which was held before the NCLT, for grant of approval to the Resolution Plan. In that eventuality, where the appellant has opted to put a challenge only to the order of rejection of recall application, it would amount to that he has acceded to the order of approval of the resolution plan, and consequentially the implications of Order II Rule 2, of CPC would follow which is otherwise principally made applicable in the proceedings which are held before the NCLT or under the I & B Code.

Provisions of Section 14 of the limitation Act will not be attracted for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC – Hero Exports Vs. Mr. K. Vasudevan RP, Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Order passed under Section 45A of ESI Act, 1948 by the ESI Dept. during CIRP for recovery of the claimed amount is in violation of Section 14 of the Code – Saurabh Chawla RP Harig Chankshaft Ltd. Vs. Employee State Insurance Corporation – NCLT Allahabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Allahabad Bench held that:

(i) The actions of the ESI Dept. with respect to the issuance of an order demanding a contribution within 15 days is in violation and clearly inconsistent with the provisions of the Code.
(ii) All the provisions of the Code have overriding effect over all other laws in the country for the time being in force in case provisions of those laws are in conflict with the provisions of the Code.
(iii) Once the claim has been processed in accordance with the provisions of the Code, the Respondent cannot pursue recovery through a separate proceeding under any other Law.

Order passed under Section 45A of ESI Act, 1948 by the ESI Dept. during CIRP for recovery of the claimed amount is in violation of Section 14 of the Code – Saurabh Chawla RP Harig Chankshaft Ltd. Vs. Employee State Insurance Corporation – NCLT Allahabad Bench Read Post »

The process of settlement u/s 230 of the Companies Act with the Corporate Debtor during liquidation is still not completed, claim of the Applicant can be very well be considered – Pradeep Kumar Keshari Vs. Devendra Arora, Liquidator of UP Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Allahabad Bench

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

The process of settlement u/s 230 of the Companies Act with the Corporate Debtor during liquidation is still not completed, claim of the Applicant can be very well be considered – Pradeep Kumar Keshari Vs. Devendra Arora, Liquidator of UP Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Allahabad Bench Read Post »

Right to Payment or the right to remedy for breach of contract would give rise to a debt and Liquidator has to admit the claim against the same – Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sutanu Sinha, Liquidator of IVRCL Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:

(i) The right to payment or the right to remedy for breach of contract would give rise to a debt, existence of which once established, result in a claim that the liquidator has to admit the same.
(ii) This discretion contrasts with the more limited authority granted to the Resolution Professional (RP) during the verification of claims in CIRP proceedings.

Right to Payment or the right to remedy for breach of contract would give rise to a debt and Liquidator has to admit the claim against the same – Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sutanu Sinha, Liquidator of IVRCL Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top