22/03/2021

Receipt of Demand Notice u/s 8 of IBC by the Independent Director of Corporate Debtor is sufficient under Rule 5 of AAA Rules, 2016 – Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of Risa International Ltd. Vs. Tanaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 31 minutes of reading

NCLAT holds that the receipt of notice by the Independent Director further fortifies the case of the Operational Creditor, as he is a Member of the Board of Directors and it can be safely construed that the Board of Directors has knowledge of the same. It is the Board of Directors who takes a call and acts on behalf of the Corporate Debtor and the Independent Director is a part of it. Be that as it may, the Respondent had got issued a Legal Notice dated 20.08.2018 prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice in September 2018, addressed to the Corporate Debtor at the Registered Address. The same has not been denied by the Corporate Debtor. Additionally, a notarized Affidavit of service has been filed with respect to handing over a copy of the Petition to the Office of the Corporate Debtor. It is held service of Demand Notice mandated under Section 8 of the IBC to the aforesaid address of the Corporate Debtor is satisfactory and is therefore held sufficient.(p22-23)

Receipt of Demand Notice u/s 8 of IBC by the Independent Director of Corporate Debtor is sufficient under Rule 5 of AAA Rules, 2016 – Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of Risa International Ltd. Vs. Tanaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The municipal tax/statutory dues during the period of CIRP should be paid – Anish Niranjan Nanavaty,  RP of Reliance Infratel Ltd. Vs. Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad Himayatnagar, Nanded, Maharashtra – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

The municipal tax/statutory dues during the period of CIRP should be paid – Anish Niranjan Nanavaty,  RP of Reliance Infratel Ltd. Vs. Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad Himayatnagar, Nanded, Maharashtra – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

The IBC does not exclude the application of Sections 6 or 14 or 18 or any other provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the NCLT/NCLAT | All the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings in the NCLT/NCLAT, to the extent feasible – Sesh Nath Singh and Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court

/ 75 minutes of reading

This judgment covers:
A. Interpretation of Section 238A of IBC and applicability of provision of Limitation Act to proceedings under the IBC.
B. Interpretation of the words ‘as far as may be’ used in Section 238A of the IBC.
C. Basis of Condonation of delay in filing of Application/Appeal.
D. Requirement of Formal Application for condonation of delay in filing of Application/Appeal.
E. Various aspect of applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect to IBC.
E.1. IBC does not exclude the operation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
E.2. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are civil proceedings.
E.3. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 would qualify for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act?
E.4. Whether the expression ‘Court’ in Section 14(2) of Limitation Act includes any forum under the SARFAESI Act?
E.5 Whether exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, would only be available if the proceedings had ended?
F. Other: Dispute irrelevant for IBC Section 7 proceedings.
G. Conclusion and
H. Disposed of.

The IBC does not exclude the application of Sections 6 or 14 or 18 or any other provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the NCLT/NCLAT | All the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings in the NCLT/NCLAT, to the extent feasible – Sesh Nath Singh and Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top