24/03/2022

The liabilities of the corporate debtor and the co-borrower companies are joint and co-extensive in nature and that claims of similar amounts could be submitted by the financial creditor in all the CIRPs – Mr. Sandeep Garg Director, M/s Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The main dispute raised by the Appellant is that there are CIRPs going on against two other co-borrowers viz Ninex Developers and Red Topaz Real Estate companies on the basis of the same loan agreement, and hence the section 7 application against Abloom Infotech is not maintainable.
NCLAT holds that when the liabilities of the principal borrower and surety are co-extensive under an agreement, it stands to reason that the liabilities of co-borrowers who have equal and similar liabilities under a loan agreement will also be there and CIRPs against them can run simultaneously. Moreover, till the financial creditor is able to get payment of his claim, he can file claim in all the CIRPs and also have voting rights in the respective CoCs based on the quantum of his financial debt. Thus we infer that the liabilities of the corporate debtor and the co-borrower companies are joint and co-extensive in nature and that claims of similar amounts could be submitted by the financial creditor in all the CIRPs.

The liabilities of the corporate debtor and the co-borrower companies are joint and co-extensive in nature and that claims of similar amounts could be submitted by the financial creditor in all the CIRPs – Mr. Sandeep Garg Director, M/s Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The Financial Creditor entitled for taking benefit of 3 years period of limitation from the date of last payment – Atharva Auto Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intec Capital Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In the present case, Part-IV of the Section 7 Application of the IBC, ‘Date of Default’ is dated 25th August, 2017 there is no dispute regarding that but along with the Application the relevant documents including ledger account of the payment were also brought on record where the last payment made by the Corporate Debtor has been mentioned on 31.07.2018 and the same has been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of the last payment made on 31.07.2018 as noted above, the Application was well within time and the Financial Creditor entitled for taking benefit of 3 years period of limitation from the date of last payment.

The Financial Creditor entitled for taking benefit of 3 years period of limitation from the date of last payment – Atharva Auto Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intec Capital Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

It is the commercial wisdom of the CoC to take a decision as to whether Resolution Applicant is eligible to run the Corporate Debtor and whether the financial offers and other offers given by the Resolution Plan are sufficient to approve and comply the mandates given in the statutory scheme – Vijay Kumar Pandey Vs. Panacealife Healthzone Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

It is the commercial wisdom of the CoC to take a decision as to whether Resolution Applicant is eligible to run the Corporate Debtor and whether the financial offers and other offers given by the Resolution Plan are sufficient to approve and comply the mandates given in the statutory scheme – Vijay Kumar Pandey Vs. Panacealife Healthzone Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top