25/02/2020

Bank of India Vs. Shrenuj & Company Limited – NCLAT

NCLAT held that the adverse observations made by Adjudicating Authority, being admittedly subject to correction in investigation, were avoidable. They will not affect investigation in any manner or be basis to hold adversely against Appellant Bank or its officials. For the purpose of finding debt due and default for admitting Application it was not possible to accept defence of valuation claimed in averments vis-à-vis valuation done in record of seizure referred. Adjudicating Authority could not have decided such averments. The Appeal is disposed accordingly. No orders as to costs.

Bank of India Vs. Shrenuj & Company Limited – NCLAT Read Post »

A statement in a balance sheet of a company presented to a creditor- shareholder of the company & duly signed by the directors constitutes an acknowledgement of the debt u/s 18 of the Limitation Act – Gautam Sinha Ex-Director/Promoter, M/s. Kalpataru Cold Vs. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – NCLAT

Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for effect of acknowledgement in writing. It says where before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, a fresh period of limitation shall commence from the time when the
acknowledgement was so signed.
A statement in a balance sheet of a company presented to a creditor- share holder of the company and duly signed by the directors constitutes an acknowledgement of the debt. The balance sheets and in explaining the statements in the balance-sheets, the balance-sheets together with the Directors’ report must be taken together. NCLAT held that the statement recorded by the Auditor with regard to the pending litigation cannot be read as an acknowledgement by Company under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

A statement in a balance sheet of a company presented to a creditor- shareholder of the company & duly signed by the directors constitutes an acknowledgement of the debt u/s 18 of the Limitation Act – Gautam Sinha Ex-Director/Promoter, M/s. Kalpataru Cold Vs. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – NCLAT Read Post »

Section 2 of IBC provides that the provisions of the Code apply, inter alia, to “proprietorship firms”. Further the definition of “person” in Section 3(23) of IBC is inclusive definition- Neeta Saha vs. Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta -NCLAT

The Corporate Debtor took up a defence that the Application was filed in the name of sole proprietorship firm and it was not a legal entity under the definition of “person” under Section 3(23) of IBC. It was also claimed that the Operational Creditor had added interest which was not stipulated in the agreement. The Adjudicating Authority, after hearing the parties, has admitted the Application under Section 9 of IBC and against the said admission, present Appeal has been filed.

Section 2 of IBC provides that the provisions of the Code apply, inter alia, to “proprietorship firms”. Further the definition of “person” in Section 3(23) of IBC is inclusive definition- Neeta Saha vs. Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta -NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top