10/04/2024

The valuation of Corporate Debtor cannot be challenged by anyone when Resolution Plan has already been approved by NCLT | If CoC disagree with Valuation Report, it would direct for fresh valuation, where CoC agrees, the decision of CoC is final and there is no scope for judicial review – Jai Kishore Gupta Vs. Balaji Paper and Newsprint Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench held that:

(i) The valuation of the Corporate Debtor cannot be challenged at this stage by anyone when the resolution plan has already been approved by us.
(ii) Question of valuation carried out by two independent Registered Valuers duly registered with IBBI cannot be challenged by the Appellants as the same being a question of fact is normally not interfered by Courts.
(iii) If the CoC disagree, it would direct for fresh valuation. Where the CoC agrees, the decision of the CoC in this regard is final and there is no scope for judicial review.
(iv) It is the duty of the Financial Creditors and the Resolution Professional, to invoke personal guarantees as well as corporate guarantees furnished for the loans and advances taken by the Corporate Debtor for the purpose of maximisation of wealth of the Corporate Debtor.

The valuation of Corporate Debtor cannot be challenged by anyone when Resolution Plan has already been approved by NCLT | If CoC disagree with Valuation Report, it would direct for fresh valuation, where CoC agrees, the decision of CoC is final and there is no scope for judicial review – Jai Kishore Gupta Vs. Balaji Paper and Newsprint Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

There is no provision for excluding the period of limitation for execution during which the name of the Companies was struck off from the rolls of the ROC – Sarda Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Banga Knitting and Dyeing Mills – Delhi High Court

In this case, the appellant company was struck off from the rolls of the Registrar of the Companies in 2017 and it was only in 2020, consequent on the appellant moving the NCLT, that the Company was revived and brought back on the rolls on the Registrar of Companies. Thus, he submits that for the period of three years from 2017 to 2020, during which period the name of his client was struck off from the Register of the ROC, it was impossible for the appellant to file these execution petitions. The aforesaid period of three years, he submits ought, in the interests of justice, to be condoned. He seeks to invoke for this purpose, Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Limitation Act.

There is no provision for excluding the period of limitation for execution during which the name of the Companies was struck off from the rolls of the ROC – Sarda Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Banga Knitting and Dyeing Mills – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Moratorium under Section 14 of IBC shall not prevent recovery of possession from the unauthorized occupant – Raj Sekhar Roy Vs. Avani Projects & Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

Moratorium under Section 14 of the Code shall not prevent recovery of possession from the unauthorized occupant. In view of the fact that the license period has expired on 31.08.2018 and has not been renewed thereafter. Further, the Corporate Debtor having failed to pay license fees since, 2017 and has lost its status as a licensee. Resolution Professional shall deliver vacant possession of the premises to the Applicant, after setting the same vacated from the possession of the current occupant, if required by way of notice to the said person providing appropriate time to vacate the premises as per law.

Moratorium under Section 14 of IBC shall not prevent recovery of possession from the unauthorized occupant – Raj Sekhar Roy Vs. Avani Projects & Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Without invoking the Personal Guarantee, application under Section 94 of IBC is without any cause and is premature – Mrs. Laxmidevi Ansukumar Baid Vs. ICICI Bank – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

By virtue of Demand Notice dated 07.06.2023 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Applicant was also asked to make the payment of dues. But there is neither anything on record to show that any other notice has been issued by Respondent Bank to the Applicant in the capacity of Personal Guarantor to invoke the Personal Guarantee nor any steps have been taken by the Respondent Bank to recover the dues from the Applicant by sale of personal assets except secured assets.

Without invoking the Personal Guarantee, application under Section 94 of IBC is without any cause and is premature – Mrs. Laxmidevi Ansukumar Baid Vs. ICICI Bank – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Language of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has inherent restrictions – Shajas Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Moniveda Consultants LLP and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Language of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has inherent restrictions – Shajas Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Moniveda Consultants LLP and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top