06/05/2024

Whether Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant have vested right to challenge eligibility of Successful Resolution Applicant – Creative Channel Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT with respect to the IAs filed by PRA considered that since the plan already stands approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, these belated contentions are filed after filing of the Application for the approval of the Resolution Plan by RP. Moreover, this process under the IBC is a time bound process wherein the legislature and the regulator have set out specific timelines within which the process should be completed, including timelines within which PRAs can raise objections with respect to inclusion or exclusion of a PRA in the provisional list of PRAs basis the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the contentions raised thereafter are highly belated and now cannot be used to turn around and derail the process. Hence, relying on the above the applications are not maintainable as the unsuccessful resolution applicants have no vested right.

Whether Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant have vested right to challenge eligibility of Successful Resolution Applicant – Creative Channel Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

NCLT approves Resolution Plan submitted by Sapphire Media Ltd. in CIRP of Reliance Broadcast Network Ltd. – Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra RP of Reliance Broadcast Network Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

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

NCLT approves Resolution Plan submitted by Sapphire Media Ltd. in CIRP of Reliance Broadcast Network Ltd. – Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra RP of Reliance Broadcast Network Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Dispute between the parties regarding contractual conditions relating to place of delivery and obligation of parties for transport of goods is a pre-existing dispute as per IBC and the application for CIRP against Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed – Sanam Fashion & Design Exchange Ltd. Vs. Ktex Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) In the present case, the appellant had placed an advance with the respondent for supply of goods, it does not matter who is the supplier or the receiver of goods and services Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 09 SC,
(ii) There was a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding contractual conditions relating to place of delivery and obligation of parties for transport of goods and therefore the application for CIRP against Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed.

Dispute between the parties regarding contractual conditions relating to place of delivery and obligation of parties for transport of goods is a pre-existing dispute as per IBC and the application for CIRP against Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed – Sanam Fashion & Design Exchange Ltd. Vs. Ktex Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can proceedings under Section 66 of IBC, 2016 for fraudulent trading or wrongful trading be initiated against the third parties? – Royal India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mr. Nandkishor Vishnupant Deshpande, RP for Royal Refinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that as per provisions of Section 66(1) of IBC, the Adjudicating Authority can pass an order directing “any person”, who was party to carrying on the business of Corporate Debtor in such manner as to defraud creditors of the Corporate Debtor, or for any fraudulent purpose, to make him liable to make such contribution to the assets of the Corporate Debtor as it may deem fit. A plain reading clearly shows that action can be taken against ‘any person’ for recovery of amount involved in the fraudulent transaction.

Can proceedings under Section 66 of IBC, 2016 for fraudulent trading or wrongful trading be initiated against the third parties? – Royal India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mr. Nandkishor Vishnupant Deshpande, RP for Royal Refinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The decision taken by New Resolution Professional cannot be objected by Erstwhile Resolution Professional after replacement by New RP, who is now proceeding with the CIRP – Partha Sarathy Sarkar Vs. Union of India and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

The decision taken by New Resolution Professional cannot be objected by Erstwhile Resolution Professional after replacement by New RP, who is now proceeding with the CIRP – Partha Sarathy Sarkar Vs. Union of India and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries was on its own facts – Prakash Kumar Raj (Suspended) Director. Mountain Edge Tours Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the Appellant placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 91 SC submits that the Adjudicating Authority has discretionary power, which should have been used in rejecting the application.

Hon’ble NCLAT holds that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidarbha was on its own facts and the said judgment does not apply in the present case.

The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries was on its own facts – Prakash Kumar Raj (Suspended) Director. Mountain Edge Tours Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top