22/01/2021

Mere filling of Expression of Interest does not create any right over the proposed Resolution Applicant, so as to prevail over the commercial wisdom of CoC – M/s Aaryavart Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Shri Parthiv Parikh RP of M/s. M. V. Omni Projects (India) Limited & Ors – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

NCLT held that it is needless to mention herein that the approval or acceptance of Resolution Plan is the prerogative of the CoC and their commercial wisdom. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 10673 of 2018 in K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. [2019] ibclaw.in 08 SC comprising of Hon’ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC. It is a matter of fact that on publication or invitation of Expression of Interest, any Resolution Applicant may file their Expression of Interest. Mere filling of Expression of Interest does not create any right over the proposed Resolution Applicant, so as to prevail over the commercial wisdom of CoC. The RP has to act as per Section 30 of the IB Code and the decision are being taken by the member of CoC and on verification of Resolution Plan, they may take the decision upon the Plan so submitted by the Resolution Applicant(s).

Mere filling of Expression of Interest does not create any right over the proposed Resolution Applicant, so as to prevail over the commercial wisdom of CoC – M/s Aaryavart Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Shri Parthiv Parikh RP of M/s. M. V. Omni Projects (India) Limited & Ors – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

If there was any shortcoming in regard to filing of Vakalatnama or making endorsement in regard to date in the prescribed format, Appellant could be provided an opportunity in terms of mandate of proviso under Section 9(5) of the IBC – Silvassa Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Noor India Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Incompleteness is distinct from non-maintainability, the latter having broader contours. If, there was any shortcoming in regard to filing of Vakalatnama or making endorsement in regard to date in the prescribed format, Appellant could be provided an opportunity in terms of mandate of proviso under Section 9(5) of the IBC.

If there was any shortcoming in regard to filing of Vakalatnama or making endorsement in regard to date in the prescribed format, Appellant could be provided an opportunity in terms of mandate of proviso under Section 9(5) of the IBC – Silvassa Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Noor India Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Rajkumar Brothers And Production Private Limited Vs. Harish Amilineni Shareholder and erstwhile Director of Amilionn Technologies Private Limited & Anr. – Supreme Court

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

Rajkumar Brothers And Production Private Limited Vs. Harish Amilineni Shareholder and erstwhile Director of Amilionn Technologies Private Limited & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Period of limitation start from the last date of payment which is also shown in ledger account – MCC Concrete Vs. Northway Spaces Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that we have considered the objection of ld. counsel for the respondent that the claim is barred by limitation. The ledger account is a running account which shows that on 05/11/2015, the respondent has made payment of Rs. 12 lacs to appellant and from this date of acknowledgment within three years, that is on 15/01/2018 the application is filed. Thus, the application is within period of limitation. We agree with the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the application is filed within the period of limitation.(p21)

Period of limitation start from the last date of payment which is also shown in ledger account – MCC Concrete Vs. Northway Spaces Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top