Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Beeceelene Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Radhakishan B. Ruchandani – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
In the instant case, the Resolution Professional filed application for withdrawal u/s 12A after rejection of Resolution Plan by CoC. The AA rejected the withdrawal application. NCLAT holds that a mere glance of the terms of the implementation, it unerringly, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, points out that it is more like that of a contemplated/Resolution Plan, proposed in terms of the ingredients of Section 30 of the Code and in short, it cannot be characterised as a Settlement in a stricto sense of the one, envisaged as per Section 12A of Code.
It cannot be ignored that if the CIRP is initiated by admitting the application under Section 7 or 9 or 10, it cannot be set aside or withdrawn except for any illegality, to be exhibited or if it is without jurisdiction or for some other justiciable ground just because a promoter desires to pay all dues including the default amount cannot be a ground to set aside the CIRP. The well settled legal principle is that the Committee of Creditors ought not to approve the Resolution Plan where the Resolution Applicant is ineligible under Section 29A of the Code. In this connection this Tribunal pertinently points out that in the instant case on hand, the promoter of the Corporate Debtor being ineligible to project a Resolution Plan by virtue of Section 29A of the Code had embarked upon the aspect of furnishing a settlement proposal ‘which is akin to Resolution Plan’. To put it differently the promoter of the Corporate Debtor had ventured in endeavouring to restructure the loan sanctioned by the Financial Creditors based on the premise of a Settlement Proposal to be filed under Section 12A of the Code.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Stable Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jain – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
NCLAT holds that it is also not in dispute that the Corporate Debtor as on the date of filing of the CIRP was not registered as an MSME. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that though CIRP commenced on 26.04.2019 the Order by the Adjudicating Authority was passed only on 17.08.2020 and therefore the RP ought to have given an opportunity to register the Corporate Debtor as an MSME under the MSME Act, 2006, cannot be sustained. Having regard to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank [2019] ibclaw.in 08 SC, Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.(2021) ibclaw.in 54 SC, NCLAT notes that the threshold for interfering in a commercial decision of the CoC is very high and the Company has already been recommended for liquidation by a majority of 88.44%. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate that there was any material irregularity as defined under Section 30(2) of the Code in the Order impugned passed by the Adjudicating Authority directing for Liquidation.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
AMNS Steel Logistics Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Sujay U. Desai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office – Allahabad High Court Read Post »
