12/05/2022

Can the dues/outstanding be claimed by any of the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor after the approval of the Resolution Plan? – Bhagwati Power and Steel Ltd. & Anr Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar, & Anr – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP on 23 August, 2017 and the Resolution plan was approved by this Adjudicating Authority on 07 December, 2018, whereas demand notices issued by various statutory authorities deals with the debt prior to the CIRP period. Also, no steps were taken by any of the Respondents to file their claim before the IRP or RP. The issue involved in these IAs has already been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra (2021) ibclaw.in 54 SC, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that the intention behind the enactment of the Code was to help the Corporate Debtor revive and the SRA who is actively involved in such revival should be given a fresh slate. Hence, the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA and once approved by the Adjudicating Authority as per section 31(1) of the Code shall be binding on all the stakeholders. If every time a new claim is tossed over towards the SRA after the approval of the Resolution Plan then the prima facie objective of the Code i.e., to make the Corporate Debtor as a going concern will rendered otiose. The term ‘stakeholders’ includes Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities, including tax authorities.

Can the dues/outstanding be claimed by any of the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor after the approval of the Resolution Plan? – Bhagwati Power and Steel Ltd. & Anr Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar, & Anr – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Cancellation of auction sale upon failure to pay consideration within 90 days as per Liquidation Regulations, 2016 – Potens Transmissions & Power Pvt. Ltd Vs. Gian Chand Narang – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that when we look into the above regulation, it is clear that 90 days’ period provided for making the deposit is the maximum period under which the Auction Purchaser had to make the deposit. 2nd Proviso of the Item 12 of the Schedule I provided that sale shall be cancelled if the payment is not received within 90 days. When the Consequence of non-compliance of the provision is provided in the statute itself, the provision is necessary to be held to be mandatory. Item 12 provides that payment is to be made within 90 days and with interest after 30 days at the rate of 12 percent. Non-compliance of 2nd Proviso, sale shall be cancelled if the payment is not received within 90 days. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that in view of the Appellant having not made payment in 90 days, Adjudicating Authority has no option except to allow the Application filed by the Liquidator for cancellation of the sale.

Cancellation of auction sale upon failure to pay consideration within 90 days as per Liquidation Regulations, 2016 – Potens Transmissions & Power Pvt. Ltd Vs. Gian Chand Narang – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

What is pledge and the legal difference between ownership, pledge and mortgage – PTC India Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Venkateswarlu Kari and Another – Supreme Court

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

What is pledge and the legal difference between ownership, pledge and mortgage – PTC India Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Venkateswarlu Kari and Another – Supreme Court Read Post »

There being no assets in the Company both tangible and intangible no purpose shall be served in insolvency resolution – Rosoboronservices (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the application filed under Section 10 of the Code directing that there are no assets in the Company both tangible and intangible. In view of this, the bench advices the petitioner to go for voluntary liquidation of the company. NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority has observed in the order that there are no assets in the Company both tangible and intangible. We are of the view that there being no assets in the Company both tangible and intangible no purpose shall be served in insolvency resolution in the facts of the present case.

There being no assets in the Company both tangible and intangible no purpose shall be served in insolvency resolution – Rosoboronservices (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top