29/06/2022

The latin maxim, nulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuria sua propria, will apply to the present case also. The Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Abhijeet Integrated Steel Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

In the case of State Bank of India v N. S. Engineering Projects Private Limited (2022) ibclaw.in 631 NCLT, we have taken the view that having contributed towards the default by their own conduct, the Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to maintain a section 7 application against the Corporate Debtor. The findings in that case will apply on all fours in a fact-situation such as the present case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case also, the present section 7 application deserves to be dismissed on the ground of contributory role played by the Financial Creditor, forcing the default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The latin maxim, nulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuria sua propria, will apply to the present case also. The Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

The latin maxim, nulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuria sua propria, will apply to the present case also. The Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Abhijeet Integrated Steel Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Tirupati Sugars Ltd. Vs. M/s Sona Sati Organics Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Corporate Debtor has paid the full amount agreed between the parties which was acknowledged by the Operational Creditor in its WhatsApp message dated 09.02.2021. We do not see anything due or outstanding to the Corporate Debtor and the denial of the Operational Creditor at this stage after receipt of the amount is just to extract more money from the Corporate Debtor and that is the reason why the Operational Creditor did not sign the terms of settlement sent to it by the Corporate Debtor. If the operational creditor had acknowledged all other whatsApp msg, and did not deny having received them, there was no question of disowning the one in which it admits all the amount received, particularly when all the whatsApp msgs were sent from the same mobile no. This conduct of the operational creditor puts a big question mark on the fair conduct of the operational creditor.

Tirupati Sugars Ltd. Vs. M/s Sona Sati Organics Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

CoC can reject a Resolution Plan of a Resolution Applicant even the offered value is more than the offered value of the Successful Resolution Applicant – M/s Silicon Jewel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Mr. Kailash T. Shah RP for Sterling Lam Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held that the Applicants were given an opportunity to revise the resolution plan but, the Applicants had not submitted the resolution plan at a given time. The contention of the Applicants that the offered value of the resolution plan of the Applicants was more than the offered value of the Successful Resolution Applicant even then the CoC rejected the resolution plan of the Applicants is not well-founded. It is not a disputed fact that the Applicants had not submitted the revised resolution plan at 3:30 PM on the day of the 7th CoC meeting. Moreover, the CoC in its commercial wisdom considered the resolution plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant more feasible and viable and approved the plan which is equally important as the maximization of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

CoC can reject a Resolution Plan of a Resolution Applicant even the offered value is more than the offered value of the Successful Resolution Applicant – M/s Silicon Jewel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Mr. Kailash T. Shah RP for Sterling Lam Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

The plea of Restoration/Condonation of Delay is not a matter of right. A Party who is not vigilant may not get a second opportunity – M/s. Raj Trading Company Vs. MARG Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that in Law, Sufficient Cause is not different from Good Cause. A Party who is not vigilant may not get a second opportunity. Mere absence of the Learned Counsel or a Pleader or that he is engaged elsewhere or he was engaged or in another Court is not a good reason for Restoration. Indeed, acceptability of an Explanation is the criteria for allowing a Restoration Application projected by a Party. If there is inaction, want of Bonafide, which is imputable to the Applicant/Appellant, then the Restoration Application is not to be allowed by a Tribunal or by a Court of Law. Of course, the Tribunal is to decide the Restoration Application on merits. It must be remembered that time is precious and a wasted time will never come back again or revisit in the considered opinion of this Tribunal.

The plea of Restoration/Condonation of Delay is not a matter of right. A Party who is not vigilant may not get a second opportunity – M/s. Raj Trading Company Vs. MARG Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top