20/09/2017

A Power of Attorney Holder is not competent to file an application on behalf of a Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor or Corporate Applicant, an authorised person has power to do so – Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Limited-NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT  held that a ‘Power of Attorney Holder’ is not competent to file an application on behalf of a ‘Financial Creditor’ or ‘Operational Creditor’ or ‘Corporate Applicant’. Further held that the ‘I&B Code’ is a complete Code by itself. The provision of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 cannot override the specific provision of a statute which requires that a particular act should be done by a person in the manner as prescribed thereunder.

A Power of Attorney Holder is not competent to file an application on behalf of a Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor or Corporate Applicant, an authorised person has power to do so – Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Limited-NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated due to dishonor of cheque and the same cannot be a ground to reject the application under Section 7 of the Code, there being debt and default – M/s. R.G. Shaw & Sons Private Limited & Anr. Vs. M/s. Naviplast Trader Private Limited & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated due to dishonor of cheque and the same cannot be a ground to reject the application under Section 7 of the Code, there being debt and default – M/s. R.G. Shaw & Sons Private Limited & Anr. Vs. M/s. Naviplast Trader Private Limited & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top