23/08/2022

Whether the benefit of Section 10A of IBC can also be claimed by a Personal Guarantor and an application under Section 95 shall be barred for a default which has arisen on or after 25.03.2020 till 24.03.2021? – Amit Jain Vs. Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that on the basic principle of statutory interpretation, the provision of Section 10A is capable of only one meaning that is suspension of initiation of CIRP was only for a Corporate Debtor. Had the legislature intended suspension of initiation of CIRP against the Personal Guarantor also, similar amendment was also required to be made in Chapter III of Part III of the Code. The legislature is presumed to be aware of consequences of statutory provision especially consequences of amendment made in the statute. Whether the suspension of insolvency resolution process has to be for Corporate Debtor and also for individuals including Personal Guarantor is the legislative policy which policy has to be looked into from the amendment brought in the Code by insertion of Section 10A.

Whether the benefit of Section 10A of IBC can also be claimed by a Personal Guarantor and an application under Section 95 shall be barred for a default which has arisen on or after 25.03.2020 till 24.03.2021? – Amit Jain Vs. Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLT Rule 43(1) and (2) gives ample powers to the NCLT Bench to call any information or evidence as it may consider necessary in its discretion – Trident Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hiranmayee Energy Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In the present case, the Appellant has filed an I.A. seeking directions to the Corporate Debtor to disclose certain documents as has been noticed above. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the application has given reasons especially that there is no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor, hence, he is not entitled to call for documents. NCLAT held that we do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the I.A. filed by the Appellant.

NCLT Rule 43(1) and (2) gives ample powers to the NCLT Bench to call any information or evidence as it may consider necessary in its discretion – Trident Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hiranmayee Energy Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

OTS is under consideration does not render the order of liquidation invalid in any manner – Ram Bhaj Jain Vs. Tarun Batra, RP Vardhman Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

OTS is under consideration does not render the order of liquidation invalid in any manner – Ram Bhaj Jain Vs. Tarun Batra, RP Vardhman Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top