13/12/2017

A complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station against Resolution Professional would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI – M/s Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd Vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

NCLT held that if, there is any complaint against the Insolvency Professional then the IBBI is competent to constitute a disciplinary committee and have the same investigated from an Investigating Authority as per the provision of section 220 of the Code. If, after investigation IBBI finds that a criminal case has been made out against the Insolvency Resolution Professional then the IBBI has to file a complaint in respect of the offences committed by him. It is with the aforesaid object that protection to action taken by the IRP in good faith has been accorded by section 233 of the Code. There is also complete bar of trial of offences in the absence of filing of a complaint by the IBBI as is evident from a perusal of section 236(1)(2) of the code. Therefore, a complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI.

A complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station against Resolution Professional would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI – M/s Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd Vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date – Mr. Ajay Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India and State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 9 minutes of reading

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

It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date – Mr. Ajay Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India and State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground to reject an application under Section 10 of IBC, if otherwise it is complete in terms of IBC and IBC(Application to AA) Rules, 2016 including Form 6 therein – Leo Duct Engineers & Consultants Limited Vs. Canara Bank – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 10 minutes of reading

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

Initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground to reject an application under Section 10 of IBC, if otherwise it is complete in terms of IBC and IBC(Application to AA) Rules, 2016 including Form 6 therein – Leo Duct Engineers & Consultants Limited Vs. Canara Bank – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

No application filed u/s 7 can be treated as an application under Section 9 of the Code – PEC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sree Ramakrishna Alloys Ltd. – NCLAT

/ 16 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that if an application is filed by a person under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’ and in case the Adjudicating Authority comes to the conclusion that the Applicant is not a ‘Financial Creditor’ in such case the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to reject the application under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’, but the said Authority cannot treat the format of the application under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’ (Form-1) as an application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ (Form-5), nor can treat such person an ‘Operational creditor’, in absence of any claim made under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’. Further, as the informations required to be given in Form-1 varies from the informations as required to be given in Form-5 (As per Section 9), including instructions made below the requisite form(s), no application filed under Section 7 can be treated as an application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code.

No application filed u/s 7 can be treated as an application under Section 9 of the Code – PEC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sree Ramakrishna Alloys Ltd. – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top