07/01/2019

The Insolvency Code provides specific time frame to complete the process & the AA should take it seriously & cannot adjourn the matter on the one or the other ground, which we have already noticed in the earlier order- The Dhar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.-NCLAT

Adjudicating Authority is not required to decide mis-match of ‘debt’ occurred in one place or the other place and the mis-match of ‘debt’ cannot be a ground to reject the claim if the amount is due more than Rupees One Lakh and there is a ‘default’. Under Section 7(5), the Adjudicating Authority is to be satisfied that a ‘default’ has been occurred. If the ‘debt’ is more than Rupees One lakh, then the Adjudicating Authority is required to admit the application, except where there is defect, which can be removed within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice from the Adjudicating Authority. The ‘corporate debtor’ may only take plea that the ‘default’ has not occurred in the sense that ‘debt’ which has also includes ‘disputed claim’ is not due, a ‘debt’ may not be due, if it is not payable in law or in fact.

The Insolvency Code provides specific time frame to complete the process & the AA should take it seriously & cannot adjourn the matter on the one or the other ground, which we have already noticed in the earlier order- The Dhar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.-NCLAT Read Post »

The Adjudicating Authority is required to issue limited notice to the Corporate Debtor before admission of an application of CIRP- Dilip Chhabria Vs. Minda Capital Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

The Adjudicating Authority is required to issue limited notice to the Corporate Debtor before admission of an application of CIRP- Dilip Chhabria Vs. Minda Capital Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If there is any evidence available with the Appellant to suggest that certain sums of the Corporate Debtor have been syphoned prior to initiation of CIRP, the Appellant should bring it to the notice of the Resolution Professional with request to refer the matter to the Adjudicating Authority or NCLT – Amit Tandon Vs. Pramjit Singh Saini & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the suggestion as made by learned senior counsel may be correct but on such ground triggering of the CIRP cannot be recalled. We are of the view that if there is any evidence available with the Appellant to suggest that certain sums of the Corporate Debtor have been syphoned prior to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Appellant should bring it to the notice of the Resolution Professional with request to refer the matter to the Adjudicating Authority or NCLT, who may consider whether any investigation of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is required in terms of Section 213 r/w Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 to find out whether funds of the Corporate Debtor has been Syphoned or not and forensic audit needs to be conducted or not. If any such prima facie case is made out before the Resolution Professional/the Adjudicating Authority it may refer the matter to SFIO for its investigation to find out misappropriation, if any, made by the Directors and officers of the company (Corporate Debtor) and/or finances have been syphoned or not.

If there is any evidence available with the Appellant to suggest that certain sums of the Corporate Debtor have been syphoned prior to initiation of CIRP, the Appellant should bring it to the notice of the Resolution Professional with request to refer the matter to the Adjudicating Authority or NCLT – Amit Tandon Vs. Pramjit Singh Saini & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The arbitration proceedings, if so pending may continue but the award, if any, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal against the Corporate Debtor be not given effect during the period of Moratorium – Ranjit Das & Ors. Vs. MSX Mall Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

The arbitration proceedings, if so pending may continue but the award, if any, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal against the Corporate Debtor be not given effect during the period of Moratorium – Ranjit Das & Ors. Vs. MSX Mall Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top