28/11/2024

Whether an application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 can be rejected upon the failure of the creditor in establishing due service of demand notice on the guarantor? – Union Bank of India Vs. Mr. N Sharat – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) The sine qua non, for initiation of insolvency resolution under section 95 IB Code 2016 is the ‘due invocation’ of the personal guarantee executed by the Guarantor.
(ii) When non-compliance of section 95(4) of IBC is ex facie, apparent and unequivocal, the Resolution Professional had ventured to observe that demand notice has been served on the personal guarantor and recommend the ‘admission’ of the present application, which in our considered opinion is a sheer mechanical act, without any application of mind.

Whether an application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 can be rejected upon the failure of the creditor in establishing due service of demand notice on the guarantor? – Union Bank of India Vs. Mr. N Sharat – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Decree of Civil Court is sufficient to put the claim for arrears of rent under Section 14(1)(a) and not under14(1)(d) of IBC and CIRP Regulation 31(b) is not applicable – Ms. G. Swathi Vs. Mr. Bathina Venka Reddy Liquidator of DQ Entertainment (International) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that the claim of the Applicant does not fall under Section 14(1)(d), but under Section 14(1)(a) as he has filed civil suit for the recovery of possession etc. The decree of Civil Court has already been passed in favour of the Applicant vide judgment dated 21.06.2022 in Civil Suit bearing No.215 of 2021. The decree of the Civil Court is sufficient to put the claim for arrears of rent under Clause 14(1)(a) and not under14(1)(d).

Decree of Civil Court is sufficient to put the claim for arrears of rent under Section 14(1)(a) and not under14(1)(d) of IBC and CIRP Regulation 31(b) is not applicable – Ms. G. Swathi Vs. Mr. Bathina Venka Reddy Liquidator of DQ Entertainment (International) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Revival/restore of CIRP petition even no liberty was granted to the Applicant to get the Petition revived nor there was any stipulation in the consent terms – OCS Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mystical Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 6 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrongs. The said liberty in the given situation can be construed to be a liberty to get the Petition revived and it would be just and equitable if the Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by the Applicant, which was dismissed on the basis of consent terms, is revived to be decided on merits. In case neither the Petition is revived nor a contempt is issued against the Corporate Debtor, it will cause grave injustice to the Applicant who would be rendered remediless.

Revival/restore of CIRP petition even no liberty was granted to the Applicant to get the Petition revived nor there was any stipulation in the consent terms – OCS Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mystical Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Whether ‘due’ service of notice of demand by the creditor on the guarantor demanding payment of the amount due and payable under the subject contract of guarantee is ‘sine qua non’ for maintaining the petition u/s. 95 IBC? – Union Bank of India Vs. Mr. N Subba Rao – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

Whether ‘due’ service of notice of demand by the creditor on the guarantor demanding payment of the amount due and payable under the subject contract of guarantee is ‘sine qua non’ for maintaining the petition u/s. 95 IBC? – Union Bank of India Vs. Mr. N Subba Rao – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Decree of the Civil Court is sufficient to put the claim for arrears of rent under Clause 14(1)(a) and not under14(1)(d) of IBC – Dr. Nasreen Hussain Vs. Mr. Bathina Venka Reddy Liquidator of DQ Entertainment (International) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

Decree of the Civil Court is sufficient to put the claim for arrears of rent under Clause 14(1)(a) and not under14(1)(d) of IBC – Dr. Nasreen Hussain Vs. Mr. Bathina Venka Reddy Liquidator of DQ Entertainment (International) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top