Mr. Abhilash Lal, RP of Seven Hills Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Committee of Creditors – NCLT Amaravati Bench
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Mr. Maligi Madhusudhana Reddy, RP of KVR Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Evalis India Ltd. Vs. Kwality Feeds Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Govardhana Cotton Traders Vs. Idupulapadu Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
M.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Sasisri Extractions Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Personal Guarantor was not a party to the said OTS proposal and no signatures are taken from the Personal Guarantor in respect of the said OTS proposal. A judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the FC which is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr. (2021) ibclaw.in 69 SC, is on the point whether OTS proposal would amount to an acknowledgment on the part of the CD.
The Adjudicating Authority held that the judgment does not pertain to the Personal Guarantor. The question whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act, applies to the proceedings under IBC is too well settled that it is applicable. But from the facts, it has to be seen whether there is any acknowledgment on the part of the Personal Guarantor, when alone Section 18 of the Limitation Act, can be made applicable.