30/01/2023

If promoters are aggrieved on valuation of assets, treatment of Secured/unsecured creditors etc., the course open for the promoters are to approach Adjudicating Authority at the relevant time for challenging – Rohit Jindal Vs. Fanendra Harakchand Munot RP of Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 8 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that the promoters if they were aggrieved by the valuation taken by the IRP/RP and the valuation received before the CoC, the course open for the promoters was to approach the Adjudicating Authority questioning the valuation at the relevant time when the question could have been gone into and examined before Form-G was issued and Form-H has been submitted by the Resolution Professional on the basis of the valuation undertaken in the process. At this stage, appellant cannot be allowed to raise the question of valuation.

If promoters are aggrieved on valuation of assets, treatment of Secured/unsecured creditors etc., the course open for the promoters are to approach Adjudicating Authority at the relevant time for challenging – Rohit Jindal Vs. Fanendra Harakchand Munot RP of Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds decision of NCLAT in Jet Airways on payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity of Workmen and Employees till the date of commencement of the insolvency – Jalan Fritsch Consortium Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. – Supreme Court

/ 1 minute of reading

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

Supreme Court upholds decision of NCLAT in Jet Airways on payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity of Workmen and Employees till the date of commencement of the insolvency – Jalan Fritsch Consortium Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether assets of the subsidiary companies can be dealt with in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of holding Company? – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) Vs. Roma Unicon Designex Consortium – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 117 minutes of reading

The Scheme of the Code has referred the assets of the subsidiary, assets of any Indian or foreign subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, assets of the Corporate Debtor and assets of subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor have been separately recognised and dealt with. Section 18, sub-section (1), Explanation further clarifies the law when it says that assets shall include the assets, meaning thereby assets of the Corporate Debtor, shall not include assets of any Indian subsidiary. In the CIRP of Corporate Debtor, thus, assets of subsidiary Company, i.e., Earth Towne were not to be taken into consideration or treated as the assets of the Corporate Debtor. As regards, the law relating to resolution process of a corporate person is concerned, the law is concerned with assets of the Corporate Debtor and its liabilities, so as to focus the resolution on the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The natural corollary to the above provision is that the assets of the subsidiary Company cannot be dealt with, in CIRP of a holding Company. Holding Company and subsidiary Company have separate legal status and the assets of subsidiary Company cannot be taken into consideration.

Whether assets of the subsidiary companies can be dealt with in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of holding Company? – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) Vs. Roma Unicon Designex Consortium – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top