11/11/2024

If both the parties have chosen to settle their entities’ dues to each other, at group level, the Operational Creditor cannot unilaterally choose to claim one entity’s due – Visen Industries Ltd. Vs. Peekay Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

If both the parties have chosen to settle their entities’ dues to each other, at group level, the Operational Creditor cannot unilaterally choose to claim one entity’s due – Visen Industries Ltd. Vs. Peekay Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Provident Fund dues will have to be considered as a liability payable to the EPFO Department even in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor | There is no bar in carrying out for assessment of the dues even during moratorium period which would be payable by RP and/or SRA in terms of the provisions of the EPF Act – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Satyendra Prasad Khoraniya RP of CMM Infraprojects Ltd. – NCLT Indore Bench

/ 6 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLT Indore Bench held that:

(i) The dues towards provident fund, gratuity and pension will have to be paid. The same will have to be considered as a liability payable to the EPFO Department even in the process of resolution of the Corporate Debtor.
(ii) There is a difference between assessment of the claim and recovery of the claim and in the instant case the EPFO has never initiated any recovery proceedings against the RP.
(iii) There is no bar in carrying out for assessment of the dues even during moratorium period which would be payable by RP and/or SRA in terms of the provisions of the EPF Act and included accordingly in the resolution plan.

Provident Fund dues will have to be considered as a liability payable to the EPFO Department even in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor | There is no bar in carrying out for assessment of the dues even during moratorium period which would be payable by RP and/or SRA in terms of the provisions of the EPF Act – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Satyendra Prasad Khoraniya RP of CMM Infraprojects Ltd. – NCLT Indore Bench Read Post »

Merely because the payment made by the Homebuyer may appear in the bank statement, RP cannot be expected to include name of such homebuyers who did not file the claim – Arvind Pradhan Bhanushali Vs. Chaya Gupta, RP of JSM Devcons Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Indore Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

Merely because the payment made by the applicant may appear in the bank statement, RP could not be expected to infer that the nature of such payment was towards purchase of Flat and ascertain therewith the name of such homebuyer and, therefore, the RP cannot be expected to include name of such homebuyers who did not file the claim as required under the extant regulations.

Merely because the payment made by the Homebuyer may appear in the bank statement, RP cannot be expected to include name of such homebuyers who did not file the claim – Arvind Pradhan Bhanushali Vs. Chaya Gupta, RP of JSM Devcons Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Indore Bench Read Post »

Is a Director competent to file Section 7 Application under IBC even the name of the sister concern of the Financial Creditor struck off by RoC under Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 in which he was also director – Cadillac Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JKM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 26 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that that there is no Applicability of Section 167(1) proviso to hold the Director as disqualified in the Airwill JKM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Financial Creditor. On the date of filing the Section 7 Application, Airwill Infracon had already been struck off, and the Director could not continue as Director of the Company Airwill Infracon having been dissolved, but that shall have no effect on continuance as Director in Airwill JKM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Director was fully competent to file Section 7 Application and swear Affidavit in support of Section 7 Application.

Is a Director competent to file Section 7 Application under IBC even the name of the sister concern of the Financial Creditor struck off by RoC under Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 in which he was also director – Cadillac Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JKM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is not to exercise its adjudicatory function at any stage prior to hearing of the application under Section 100 of IBC | Supreme Courts’ judgment needs to be followed even if it was not cited before the NCLT | Issue of Principle of waiver: First time raised objection in appeal – Central Bank of India Vs. Deepen Arun Parekh – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 49 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority has not even appointed the RP and the order impugned has been passed before the stage of appointment of RP and before even any Report could be called. The objections raised by Personal Guarantor in its IA were considered.
(ii) Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is law of the land, which needs to be followed by all concerned, even if the judgment was not cited before the Adjudicating Authority.
(iii) When the Adjudicating Authority directed the Financial Creditor to file a reply to the application, filing of the reply by the Appellant to IA, cannot be termed as a waiver of any of its rights.

Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is not to exercise its adjudicatory function at any stage prior to hearing of the application under Section 100 of IBC | Supreme Courts’ judgment needs to be followed even if it was not cited before the NCLT | Issue of Principle of waiver: First time raised objection in appeal – Central Bank of India Vs. Deepen Arun Parekh – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top