15/10/2024

Tribunal grants permission to hold EGM for appointment of Directors on an application filed under Section 98 of the Companies Act, 2013 by shareholder – VTP Technologies Pty. Ltd. Vs. Contrivers Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

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

Tribunal grants permission to hold EGM for appointment of Directors on an application filed under Section 98 of the Companies Act, 2013 by shareholder – VTP Technologies Pty. Ltd. Vs. Contrivers Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Is written financial contract a pre-condition or an exclusive requirement for proving existence of debt? – Rahul H. Mehta Vs. Gajendra Investment Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Issues covered in this case:

A. Is written financial contract a pre-condition or an exclusive requirement for proving existence of debt?
B. Issue of Interest charge and TDS deductions.
C. Issue of MoU and adjustment of debt with sister concern.
D. CIRP not for purposes of insolvency resolution but for pursuing some agenda other than insolvency resolution.

Is written financial contract a pre-condition or an exclusive requirement for proving existence of debt? – Rahul H. Mehta Vs. Gajendra Investment Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

No appeal but only an application lies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 | Provisions of Section 252(1) and Section 252(3) are distinct and mutually exclusive and operate under different set of circumstances | Merely holding a property for years together does not constitute ‘business’ – Mr. Tahir Vasanali Isani Vs. Registrar of Companies, Goa, Daman & Diu – NCLT Mumbai Bench

In this important decision, Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench covers followings issues:

A. Interpretation of Section 248 and Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.
B. Present application filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
C. Quoting a wrong provision of law is not fatal to the appeal.
D. Period of Limitation for filing appeal/ application.
E. Merely holding a property for years together does not constitute ‘business’.

No appeal but only an application lies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 | Provisions of Section 252(1) and Section 252(3) are distinct and mutually exclusive and operate under different set of circumstances | Merely holding a property for years together does not constitute ‘business’ – Mr. Tahir Vasanali Isani Vs. Registrar of Companies, Goa, Daman & Diu – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Any direction to consider the EoI received after the specified time would run counter to the very objective of resolving the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor in a time-bound manner – Mr Vikram Venkatrao Gaikwad Vs. Mr. Jitendra Palande RP of Jogeshwari Breweries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

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

Any direction to consider the EoI received after the specified time would run counter to the very objective of resolving the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor in a time-bound manner – Mr Vikram Venkatrao Gaikwad Vs. Mr. Jitendra Palande RP of Jogeshwari Breweries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

NCLAT upholds decision of NCLT wherein a lead bank was allowed to intervene in application under Section 95 of IBC – Indian Bank Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Section 95 application was filed by Indian Bank. Hon’ble NCLT allowed Intervention Petition filed by SBI. Hon’ble NCLAT held that State Bank of India in the lead bank and Corporate Debtor’s resolution plan have been approved, which need to be implemented.

NCLAT upholds decision of NCLT wherein a lead bank was allowed to intervene in application under Section 95 of IBC – Indian Bank Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Does interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC on a Partner extend to the Assets of the Partnership Firm? – Ramesh Kumar Chugh Vs. Assets Care & Construction Enterprises Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this important judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT has interpreted the Section 96 of IBC and held that:

(i) The interim moratorium under Section 96(1)(b)(ii) creates a prohibition on the other creditors of the debtor from initiating any legal action in respect of the debt for which Section 95 has been initiated.
(ii) The moratorium imposed under Section 96 of IBC, 2016, would strictly apply to the security interest created by the Appellant in his personal capacity and will not extend to the cover the subject property being the property of the partnership firm against which Section 95 had not been invoked.
(iii) The assets held in the name of the partnership firm is not the personal property of the Appellant and cannot be subjected to the provisions of interim moratorium merely because a Section 95 application has been filed against a partner of the firm in respect of a personal guarantee given for a party other than the partnership firm.
(iv) Merely because notice for dissolution of the partnership firm was given by the Appellant entailing the devolution of liabilities of the partnership on the partners, that the partnership firm can in turn be said to be saddled with the liabilities arising out of the personal guarantee of the Appellant.

Does interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC on a Partner extend to the Assets of the Partnership Firm? – Ramesh Kumar Chugh Vs. Assets Care & Construction Enterprises Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Provisions of Income Tax Act do not create any charge or security interest | Resolution Professional (RP) is empowered to seek additional evidence to analyse claims | CIRP Regulation does not provide any discretion to RP for admitting a claim after the extended period| Posting the status of claims on Corporate Debtor’s website & IBBI portal amounts to deemed knowledge and constructive notice – Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS-1), Mumbai Vs. Mr. Sundaresh Bhat RP of JBF Petrochemical Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this important judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT clarifies various issues related:

A. Powers of Resolution Professional in verification of claim.
B. CIRP Regulation does not provide any discretion to RP for admitting a claim after the extended period.
C. Putting up status of claims of the creditors on the websites of Corporate Debtor as well as the IBBI portal is amounted to deemed knowledge and constructive notice on the creditors with respect to rejection of its claim.
D. Whether such undecided claims can be entertained once the Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority.
E. The provisions of Income Tax Act do not create any charge or security interest.

Provisions of Income Tax Act do not create any charge or security interest | Resolution Professional (RP) is empowered to seek additional evidence to analyse claims | CIRP Regulation does not provide any discretion to RP for admitting a claim after the extended period| Posting the status of claims on Corporate Debtor’s website & IBBI portal amounts to deemed knowledge and constructive notice – Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS-1), Mumbai Vs. Mr. Sundaresh Bhat RP of JBF Petrochemical Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Unilateral entry recorded in the books of the Corporate Debtor after filing of a petition under Section 7 of IBC cannot be considered – Mr. Kailash Motilal Kakrania and Anr. Vs. Apurva Oil and Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT observed that there is no entry in the balance sheet, prior to the date of filing of petition under Section 7, regarding the said amount. Even in the books of account of the Corporate Debtor, the amounts are not adjusted against the financial debt, and are shown separately in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2022. The Hon’ble Bench referring Khushbu Dey Chem Pvt. Ltd. V. Chemical Suppliers India Pvt. Ltd. (2024) ibclaw.in 474 NCLAT set aside the impugned judgment of NCLT.

Unilateral entry recorded in the books of the Corporate Debtor after filing of a petition under Section 7 of IBC cannot be considered – Mr. Kailash Motilal Kakrania and Anr. Vs. Apurva Oil and Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top