07/01/2025

Custom Duty imposed for the sale to a foreign buyer during liquidation proceedings – The Customs Department Vs. Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

Custom Duty imposed for the sale to a foreign buyer during liquidation proceedings – The Customs Department Vs. Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »

Claim pertains to a breach of contract/ a claim for liquidated damages requires adjudication before a competent civil court and can be pursued under the insolvency resolution process – Akshay Kumar Bhatia Vs. Cue Learn Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench

/ 5 minutes of reading

In this case, Akshay Kumar Bhatia, an actor in the Indian film industry, file Section 9 application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against M/s. Cue Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), for default amount of Rs. 4,83,24,201/-
The Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi Bench has rejected the application holding that claims for damages, however, do not fall within the ambit of operational debt as defined under the IBC. While there may exist a claim for a monetary amount due to the Respondent’s alleged default, this claim does not qualify as operational debt under the provisions of the IBC. The claim pertains to a breach of contract and is, at best, a claim for liquidated damages as provided under Clause 7.2(c) of the Agreement. Such claims require adjudication before a competent civil court and do not constitute crystallized debts that can be pursued under the insolvency resolution process.

Claim pertains to a breach of contract/ a claim for liquidated damages requires adjudication before a competent civil court and can be pursued under the insolvency resolution process – Akshay Kumar Bhatia Vs. Cue Learn Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »

Whether a State Financial Corporation, after liquidation of a Company and receiving its shares as a Secured Creditor, has any right to proceed against the Company, its promoters and guarantors for recovery of balance loan amount? – Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (TIICL) Vs. Pulsar Electronics Ltd. and Ors. – Madras High Court

/ 38 minutes of reading

In the present case, the petition for recovery is filed both against the principal borrower and the Guarantor. The conduct of the petitioner, allowing the Company to get wound up and receiving Rs. 55 lakhs from the proceeds of the assets of the Company without any demure or protest or reservation do not extinguishes its right or remedy against the principal debtor or the guarantors. After exhausting its right against the property mortgaged by the principal debtor, the TIIC had proceed against the borrowing Company and the Guarantor since the liability of the borrower not fully satisfied.

Whether a State Financial Corporation, after liquidation of a Company and receiving its shares as a Secured Creditor, has any right to proceed against the Company, its promoters and guarantors for recovery of balance loan amount? – Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (TIICL) Vs. Pulsar Electronics Ltd. and Ors. – Madras High Court Read Post »

The doctrine of res judicata cannot be stretched to perpetuate restrictions on fundamental rights | The right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed arbitrarily or indefinitely – Atul Punj Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court

/ 33 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) When subsequent developments alter the factual or legal matrix, courts retain the flexibility to revisit and adjudicate such matters to ensure justice. In such cases, courts must adopt a pragmatic approach, balancing the need for judicial finality with the imperative to protect constitutional rights in light of new and compelling circumstances.
(ii) The right to travel abroad, being an essential component of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be curtailed arbitrarily or indefinitely. Restrictions such as an LOC must pass the test of proportionality and necessity, ensuring that they are imposed only when supported by credible material.

The doctrine of res judicata cannot be stretched to perpetuate restrictions on fundamental rights | The right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed arbitrarily or indefinitely – Atul Punj Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Are transactions between partnership firm and the creditors commercial in nature within under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? – Manisha Gupta Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Ors. – Delhi High Court

/ 27 minutes of reading

The transactions between partnership firm and defendant nos. 2, 5, 11 and 12 are commercial in nature within the meaning of Explanation II of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) though not under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Are transactions between partnership firm and the creditors commercial in nature within under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? – Manisha Gupta Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top