10/03/2022

Reply to Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the Corporate Debtor to raise the issue of Pre-Existing Dispute before the Adjudicating Authority – M/s. Brand Realty Services Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sir John Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT holds that even in absence of notice of dispute, Adjudicating Authority can reject the Application if there is record of dispute in the Information Utility. It goes without saying that record of dispute in the Information Utility can very well be pointed out by the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when notice is issued under Section 9. Further in Reply to Section 9 Corporate Debtor can bring the material to indicate that there are pre-existing disputes in existence prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 8. Mere fact that Reply to notice under Section 8 (1) having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the Corporate Debtor to bring relevant materials before the Adjudicating Authority to establish that there are pre-existing dispute which may lead to the rejection of Section 9 application.

Reply to Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the Corporate Debtor to raise the issue of Pre-Existing Dispute before the Adjudicating Authority – M/s. Brand Realty Services Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sir John Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority can issue direction to Resolution Professional to give copies of claims documents to the particular Financial Creditors – Acrow Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Present is the case where the Adjudicating Authority has directed for giving copies of the claims documents as required by the Applicants after inspection. NCLAT holds that there is no doubt that RP by himself cannot share the documents with any individual member of CoC unless the CoC takes a decision under Section 21(9) asking any documents from the Resolution Professional. The Order of the Adjudicating Authority for directing copies is case specific and based on the application in the present case filed by the Respondent Bank. The Resolution Professional is obliged to give such documents if any decision is taken under Section 21(9) of the Code by CoC. The direction of the Adjudicating Authority to give copies of claims documents to the particular Financial Creditors cannot be held to be not within domain of the Adjudicating Authority and in particular facts of the present case such power can very well be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority for supplying copies of the claims documents needs no interference in exercise of our appellate Jurisdiction.

Adjudicating Authority can issue direction to Resolution Professional to give copies of claims documents to the particular Financial Creditors – Acrow Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

After ample opportunities granted by the Adjudicating Authority when the Appellant has not availed the opportunities to appear and also not filed reply to Section 9 Application, no option was left with the Adjudicating Authority except to proceed ex-parte and pass order of admission – Vinay Kumar Ranchhoddas Mohota Vs. Shree Shyam Trading Company & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT holds that after ample opportunities granted by the Adjudicating Authority when the Appellant has not availed the opportunities to appear and also not filed reply to Section 9 Application, no option was left with the Adjudicating Authority except to proceed ex-parte and pass order of admission. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has committed no error in admitting the Application under Section 9

After ample opportunities granted by the Adjudicating Authority when the Appellant has not availed the opportunities to appear and also not filed reply to Section 9 Application, no option was left with the Adjudicating Authority except to proceed ex-parte and pass order of admission – Vinay Kumar Ranchhoddas Mohota Vs. Shree Shyam Trading Company & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The Adjudicating Authority(NCLT) was fully competent to recall ex-parte order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 49(2) of NCLT Rules, 2016 – Hacxad Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Skootr Global Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The present is a case where Corporate Debtor was asking for recall of the order dated 8th February, 2019 and 10th April, 2019. Both the orders were passed ex-parte and no notices were served. The Adjudicating Authority committed error in holding that the Appellant was asking for review of the admission order. In the impugned judgment dated 30th November, 2021, learned Adjudicating Authority have relied on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Khan Enterprises vs. National Company Law Tribunal & Ors. for forming an opinion that Rule 11 of NCLT Rules cannot be used seeking recall/ review of the orders. We have noticed above that what Corporate Debtor was seeking, was to recall the ex-parte order, which power was specifically conferred on the Adjudicating Authority under Rule 49, sub-rule (2). When power is specifically conferred under the Rule, there was no question of exercising any review jurisdiction in the facts of the present case. The Adjudicating Authority was fully competent to recall ex-parte order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 49, sub-rule (2).

The Adjudicating Authority(NCLT) was fully competent to recall ex-parte order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 49(2) of NCLT Rules, 2016 – Hacxad Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Skootr Global Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top