07/09/2020

If there be any irregularity in appointment/confirmation of Liquidator for not having a valid authorisation for assignment on the date of such acceptance or commencement of such assignment within the purview of Regulation 7A of the IP Regulations, 2016, that does not adversely affect and render the order of liquidation passed by the Adjudicating Authority illegal or invalid – Committee of Creditors, Represented by IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. V Venkata Sivakumar & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

If there be any irregularity in appointment/confirmation of Respondent No. 1 as ‘Liquidator’ for not having a valid authorisation for assignment on the date of such acceptance or commencement of such assignment within the purview of Regulation 7-A of the aforesaid Regulations, that does not adversely affect and render the order of liquidation passed by the Adjudicating Authority illegal or invalid. If there is any irregularity, as contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant, he shall be at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority who may have a re-look at the appointment of ‘Liquidator’ so far as the authorisation of Respondent No. 1 is concerned and pass appropriate order.

If there be any irregularity in appointment/confirmation of Liquidator for not having a valid authorisation for assignment on the date of such acceptance or commencement of such assignment within the purview of Regulation 7A of the IP Regulations, 2016, that does not adversely affect and render the order of liquidation passed by the Adjudicating Authority illegal or invalid – Committee of Creditors, Represented by IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. V Venkata Sivakumar & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Punjab National Bank Vs. Mittal Corp Limited – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the pre-requisite for the invocation of the said Circular is that there should be an aggregate exposure of the lender above Rs. 2,000 Crs. and in the instant case the total outstanding claimed debt amounts to Rs. 1,007/- Crs. out of which the amount claimed by the Appellant Bank is to the tune of Rs. 2,44,85,29,569.79/- Crs;. Additionally, it is seen, that for other accounts with aggregate exposure of the lender below Rs. 2,000/- Crs. and at or above Rs. 100/- Crs., the Reserve Bank intended to announce over a two-year period, reference date for implementing the RP to ensure time-bound resolution of all such accounts in default. Further, the documentary evidence filed before us does not evidence any such announcement made with respect to the subject matter. We are of the considered view that there is force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the said Circular is not applicable to the instant case and as a consequence the decision of Dharani Sugars (Supra) is also not applicable.

Punjab National Bank Vs. Mittal Corp Limited – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top