06/01/2025

Supreme Court permits to file a writ petition before the High Court to challenge the MSME registration certificate obtained after admission of CIRP – Central Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Shah in Consortium with Masitia Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court

/ 3 minutes of reading

During the pendency of CIRP, the Resolution Professional instructed an employee of the Corporate Debtor to make an application for registration of the Corporate Debtor as a MSME under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and certificate dated 23.10.2020 was issued.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that we are hearing an appeal in terms of Section 62 of the IBC and within its limited confines, we cannot go into the question of the validity of the registration certificate dated 23.10.2020. At the same time, the certificate having been placed on record, Section 29A read with Section 240A of the IBC would come into play and would affect the interests of the secured creditors, including the appellant, Central Bank of India.
The Hon’ble Court would permit the appellant, Central Bank of India, to file a writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court challenging the issuance of the MSME Registration Certificate dated 23.10.2020.

Supreme Court permits to file a writ petition before the High Court to challenge the MSME registration certificate obtained after admission of CIRP – Central Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Shah in Consortium with Masitia Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Common directors’ disqualification under Section 29A(e) of the IBC – Fortune Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, RP of Aarya Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 20 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLT Kolkata Bench. One of the directors of the Appellant, who was the Prospective Resolution Applicant, was also director of GADPPL which had failed to file its accounts since inception (i.e. 28.02.2014). The said Director was ineligible to be a director as per provisions of Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Appellant company also accordingly was not eligible to be a resolution applicant in terms of provisions of clause (e) of Section 29A of IBC, 2016.

Common directors’ disqualification under Section 29A(e) of the IBC – Fortune Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, RP of Aarya Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If a bank account of the Corporate Debtor was under the garnishee orders from the dates prior to initiation of CIRP, it does not form part of the liquidation estate – CS Dr Ahalada Rao Vummenthala, Liquidator of Kadevi Industries Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLT, Hyderabad Bench observed that in the present instance, the account having a balance of Rs. 18,61,866 was under the garnishee orders of much larger amounts from the different Tax Authorities from the dates prior to initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. This amount was unavailable to the Corporate Debtor prior to the commencement of the CIRP, and as such, it does not form part of the liquidation estate.

If a bank account of the Corporate Debtor was under the garnishee orders from the dates prior to initiation of CIRP, it does not form part of the liquidation estate – CS Dr Ahalada Rao Vummenthala, Liquidator of Kadevi Industries Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Since no repayment plan has been received from the Personal Guarantor, the NCLT invokes the provision under Section 115(2) of IBC to allow the application for bankruptcy to be filed – State Bank of India Vs. Savita Lohariwal – NCLT Kolkata Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

Since no repayment plan has been received from the Personal Guarantor, the NCLT invokes the provision under Section 115(2) of IBC to allow the application for bankruptcy to be filed – State Bank of India Vs. Savita Lohariwal – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Can Share Capital be reduced under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, by returning the amount to shareholders over a period of time as a loan arrangement between the company and its shareholders? – Ulundurpet Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 16 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that a bare perusal of the Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 would show it gives discretion to the appellant company to reduce its share capital “in any manner” subject to special resolution being passed by requisite majority of shareholders. The company has a power to reduce its shareholding capital in any manner, it being a domestic issue.

Can Share Capital be reduced under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, by returning the amount to shareholders over a period of time as a loan arrangement between the company and its shareholders? – Ulundurpet Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Any acknowledgement of debt by the principal borrower is also considered an acknowledgement by the guarantor under the Limitation Act, 1963 – State Bank of India Vs. Gourishankar Poddar and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 51 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that the liability of the Corporate Debtor and the guarantor are co-terminus. Thus, liability for guarantor would arise only when amounts became and went due by the Corporate Debtor. Consequently, any acknowledgement of debt by the principal borrower is also considered an acknowledgement by the guarantor under the Act of 1963. The period of limitation against the guarantor starts only when a demand is raised from the guarantor specifically. In case of continued payments by a principal borrower, no demand would be raised against a guarantor and thus limitation does not commence.

Any acknowledgement of debt by the principal borrower is also considered an acknowledgement by the guarantor under the Limitation Act, 1963 – State Bank of India Vs. Gourishankar Poddar and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLAT dismisses the Contempt Petition filed by a Resolution Professional against the Members of NCLT – Ashok Kriplani Vs. T. Krishna Valli and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 38 minutes of reading

An Ex-Resolution Professional filed a contempt petition on the ground that the initiation of CIRP against a project of the Corporate Debtor was undertaken while fees related to another project of the same Corporate Debtor remained unpaid. The contempt petition was filed against Members of the Adjudicating Authority, Ms. T. Krishna Valli, Member (Judicial), NCLT, Kochi Bench, and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Member (Technical), NCLT Bengaluru Bench.

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that while admitting a Section 7 application filed by Financial Creditors in a class, no contempt could be said to have been committed by the Adjudicating Authority, which was exercising its statutory jurisdiction under Section 7 of the IBC. Consequently, the Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the contempt petition filed against the Members of the NCLT.

NCLAT dismisses the Contempt Petition filed by a Resolution Professional against the Members of NCLT – Ashok Kriplani Vs. T. Krishna Valli and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether when Auction on “As where is, as is what is and whatever there is basis”, Successful Auction Purchaser is liable to clear pre-CIRP electricity dues? – Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) Vs. Shyam Baba Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 20 minutes of reading

In this case, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the e-Auction in which the Respondent No. 1 declared Successful Auction Purchaser was “as where is, as is what is and whatever there is basis”. When the Auction is on the above conditions which was reflected in the e-Auction notice, Successful Auction Purchaser is liable to clear all liabilities and electricity dues.

Whether when Auction on “As where is, as is what is and whatever there is basis”, Successful Auction Purchaser is liable to clear pre-CIRP electricity dues? – Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) Vs. Shyam Baba Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top