21/05/2024

Merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability | Section 96 of IBC does not bar on Court’s direction to deposit an amount as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence under NI Act, 1881 – Anurodh Mittal Vs. Rehat Trading Company and Anr. – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court refers P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 24 SC and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 30 SC judgments and holds that considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability, it is held that conviction recorded by Trial Court was not bad on account of initiation of proceedings under the Code, 2016.

Merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability | Section 96 of IBC does not bar on Court’s direction to deposit an amount as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence under NI Act, 1881 – Anurodh Mittal Vs. Rehat Trading Company and Anr. – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Claims made by Income Tax Dept. in pursuance to the assessment proceedings were finalised after the approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority – Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RP of Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that in the present case, the claims made by the Appellant in pursuance to the assessment proceedings were finalised after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. Allowing the claim at this belated stage would unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the SRA and would have the effect of setting the clock back causing further delay in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, which does not commend us.

Claims made by Income Tax Dept. in pursuance to the assessment proceedings were finalised after the approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority – Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RP of Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLT Rule 49 gives ample jurisdiction to Adjudicating Authority to proceed for ex parte as Corporate Debtor does not appear | “Appearance” as contemplated under Rule 49(1) of NCLT Rules, 2016 is appearance by Corporate Debtor or by an Authorised Representative – Ashok Tiwari Vs. DBS Bank India (Ltd.) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that from Rule 49(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, it is clear that where a petition or an application has been heard ex-parte against a respondent or respondents, such respondent or respondents may apply to the Tribunal for an order to set it aside and if such respondent or respondents satisfies the Tribunal that the notice was not duly served, or that he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing (when the petition or the application was called) for hearing. The second ground on which order can be recalled is where he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing. Present is not a case where it can be said that the corporate debtor was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing.

NCLT Rule 49 gives ample jurisdiction to Adjudicating Authority to proceed for ex parte as Corporate Debtor does not appear | “Appearance” as contemplated under Rule 49(1) of NCLT Rules, 2016 is appearance by Corporate Debtor or by an Authorised Representative – Ashok Tiwari Vs. DBS Bank India (Ltd.) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top