Rolta India Limited Vs. Reserve Bank Of India & Ors. – SC
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Rolta India Limited Vs. Reserve Bank Of India & Ors. – SC Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Rolta India Limited Vs. Reserve Bank Of India & Ors. – SC Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
P. Thamizh Vs. Union Of India & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »
In a meeting of the CoC, a decision was taken that the expenses on CIRP shall be shared by the Financial Creditors proportionately. However, one of the Financial Creditors did not agree to that.
NCLT held that for effective continuation of the CIRP, the financial creditor constituting the CoC has to contribute to the expenses, fee and other cost of the process. Otherwise, the whole process would come to a halt and cause unnecessary delay. If the financial creditor like Intec Capital Limited-non applicant is not inclined to contribute to the cost of the process, then we are doubtful as to how their claim could be considered in the whole process. Accordingly, we direct the non-applicant-respondent to contribute proportionately to the extent of 42.78% to the running CIRP cost as approved by CoC. If the non-applicant-respondent fails to contribute, then their claim in the CIRP would not be considered.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to