20/08/2020

State Bank Of India Vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani – NCLT Mumbai

NCLT held that a plain reading of the provision would indicate that while an Application for corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceedings of corporate debtors are pending before this Authority i.e. to say during the pendency of a process of corporate insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtors, an Application against the Personal Guarantor shall have to be filed. This itself indicates that the process of corporate insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtors in an Application relating to insolvency resolution etc. of a personal guarantor needs to be filed and can be prosecuted. The law doesnot envisage that the insolvency resolution of the personal guarantor should follow only when the process of corporate insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor has come to an end. Therefore, the submission that this Authority should wait till the resolution of RCOM or RITL is successfully accomplished and the debts of the corporate debtors have been satisfied, would be eristic. It is to be remembered that the present forum is not a recovery forum and has nothing to do with the satisfaction or otherwise of the debts of the corporate debtors.

State Bank Of India Vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani – NCLT Mumbai Read Post »

Gaurang Nipinbhai Nagarsheth Ex-Director/Shareholder of Poggenamp Nagarsheth Powertronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. POSCO-India Pune Processing Center Pvt Ltd – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Gaurang Nipinbhai Nagarsheth Ex-Director/Shareholder of Poggenamp Nagarsheth Powertronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. POSCO-India Pune Processing Center Pvt Ltd – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Successful Resolution Applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted – Shree Sidhivinayak Cotspin Private Limited & Anr Vs. Resolution Professional of Maruti Cotex Limited & Anr – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that it is clear that successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional, so that a prospective Resolution Applicant knows exactly, what has to be paid, in order that it may then take over and run the business of the Corporate Debtor. The law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case is applicable in this case as well. The Adjudicating Authority has neither varied the terms of the approved Resolution Plan, nor denied any concession. In fact, the Adjudicating Authority has not allowed general waiver from the statutory liabilities and has specified that the Resolution Applicant may apply for such reliefs and concessions to the relevant Authorities who may consider the same as per applicable laws.

Successful Resolution Applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted – Shree Sidhivinayak Cotspin Private Limited & Anr Vs. Resolution Professional of Maruti Cotex Limited & Anr – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top