03/12/2020

The Appellant’s application under Section 10 of the IBC was reserved for order by the NCLT and when the order came to be passed, the Adjudicating Authority again adjourned the matter directing it to be listed for further clarification – Marappar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank – NCLAT New Delhi

The Appellant’s application under Section 10 of the IBC was reserved for orders on 2nd September, 2020 by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Division Bench-II, Chennai, but on 11th November, 2020, when the impugned order came to be passed, the Adjudicating Authority again adjourned the matter directing it to be listed on 17th December, 2020 for further clarification. The impugned order has practical effect of de-reserving/ reopening the matter for further hearing.

NCLAT held that it is manifestly evident that the procedure adopted by the Adjudicating Authority does not conform to the provisions of law under the Code. Applications under Sections 7, 9 & 10 are required to be disposed of by admitting or rejecting the same within 14 days of filing. It appears that the Adjudicating Authority has adopted the procedure which runs parallel to the statutory provisions and despite reserving the order, the matter has been practically re-opened on the ground of further clarification. It appropriate to dispose of the appeal with direction to the Adjudicating Authority to prepone and list the matter immediately and after according consideration on merit, dispose of the same by passing order of admission or otherwise as warranted under law. This be done within one week from today.

The Appellant’s application under Section 10 of the IBC was reserved for order by the NCLT and when the order came to be passed, the Adjudicating Authority again adjourned the matter directing it to be listed for further clarification – Marappar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Once the claims of the Appellants have been admitted, no role is ascribed to them in the deliberation of the Committee of Creditors – Anil N. Surwade & Ors. Vs. Mr. Prashant Jain, Resolution Professional, Sejal Glass Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Once the claims of the Appellants have been admitted, no role is ascribed to them in the deliberation of the Committee of Creditors – Anil N. Surwade & Ors. Vs. Mr. Prashant Jain, Resolution Professional, Sejal Glass Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top