Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. Vs. Bijulmati Gond and Anr. – Chhattisgarh High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Hon’ble NCLT Chandigarh Bench held that IT Appeal is not against the Corporate Debtor. Although the Corporate Debtor is one of the Joint Venture partners of the Assessee, but the Assessee and Corporate Debtor are separate legal entities. As the Assessee is a separate legal entity than the Corporate Debtor, it apparently does not justify giving the approval to the Corporate Debtor to defend the IT Appeal against the Assessee. It is not clear, how the TDS refund amount received to the Assessee, if there is success in defending the IT Appeal, can be included in the liquidation estate.
Hon’ble NCLT Allahabad Bench held that:
(i) In view of Section 32A of the Code, the actions of the Respondent No. 1 with respect to the Corporate Debtor as per the letter dated 22.02.2023 and 28.10.2023 is in violation and clearly inconsistent with the provisions of the Code.
(ii) Relying on various judicial pronouncements as well as the clearly stated provisions of the Code, the Respondent’s right to recover outstanding dues from the Pre-CIRP period has been extinguished due to the completion of the CIRP process and the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
In this case before the Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench:
(i) RoC is directed to enable the filing of the statutory returns of the Corporate Debtor by the Applicant without imposing any penalties and/or late fees or additional fees for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2022.
(ii) RoC is also directed not to insist on filing consolidated financial statements relating to the period prior to 31.03.2022.
(iii) RoC or the appropriate authority shall consider accepting returns and statements in the physical firm for the period of 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2022 in case of incompatibility for online submission/e-filing.
The Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that since there are no assets for realization, the provisions of the Code deemed to have been completed under Chapter III and part II of the Code. The instant application is filed in accordance with the law and the Resolution in question to dissolve the Corporate Debtor was approved by the CoC. This is fit case for dissolving the Corporate Debtor company and allowing the Application filed by the RP praying the same.
In this case, the impugned order passed by NCLT on 16.04.2024. The impugned order was dictated in the open court. However, the order was signed and uploaded on 12.05.2024. The Appeal against the impugned order was e-filed on 10.06.2024.
Hon’ble NCLAT referring Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistara ITCL (India) Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 154 SC held that in the present case the judgment came to be ready, signed and uploaded on 12.05.2024. The Appeal filed on 10.06.2024 against an order, which was signed and made available only on 12.05.2024, is not barred by time.
Hon’ble NCLAT:
(i) There being no clause in the Agreement to include the interest on the delayed payment, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal does not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, refusing to accept the claim of the Appellant towards interest on the operational debt, which was claimed by the Appellant.
(ii) With regard to claim under the MSME, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that NCLT is not appropriate Forum to consider the issue pertaining to the interest, claimed by the Appellant under Section 16 of the MSMED Act.
(iii) Upheld the decision of NCLT.
In this judgment, the Hon’ble NCLAT clarifies following issues:
A. Whether the application of the appellant is maintainable
B. Was there final decision of the CoC with proper voting, with regard to vacation of the registered office of the Corporate Debtor.
C. No exceptions from the Section 14(1)(d).
D. Whether CoC or RP can take a decision to hand over the property in possession of Corporate Debtor to third parties.
E. Where there is a prohibition on recovery of property under Section 14(1)(d), Can the owner/lessors even file an application before the AA for recovery of such property?
F. Section 18 is not connected to Section 14(1)(d) in any manner.
G. Section 14(1)(d) does not seem to provide discretion to AA.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Parth Merchant Vs. Detox India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
