NCLT-Hyderabad Bench

When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute | Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring pre-existing dispute before NCLT – German Solar Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Zytech Solar India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) The contract can be either oral or written. When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute.
(ii) Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring relevant materials before the adjudicating authority to establish that there is pre-existing dispute which may lead to the rejection of Section 9 application.
(iii) Pre-existing dispute employed under the IBC cannot be equated with even the principle of preponderance of probability which guides a civil court at the stage of finally decreeing a suit.
(iv) The IBC is not intended to be a substitute for a recovery forum.

When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute | Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring pre-existing dispute before NCLT – German Solar Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Zytech Solar India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings – Ranga Raju Kosuri and Anr. Vs. Paradise Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

It is well established that under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings. This ensures majority rule while safeguarding minority rights, thus promoting accountability and fairness in corporate governance. Therefore, unless there is a clear violation of minority rights, the majority prevails.

Under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings – Ranga Raju Kosuri and Anr. Vs. Paradise Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

The power of re-call does not mean to hear the case – Mr. Chintala Maipal Reddy and Ors. Vs. Mr. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty Liquidator of Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

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

The power of re-call does not mean to hear the case – Mr. Chintala Maipal Reddy and Ors. Vs. Mr. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty Liquidator of Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

If a bank account of the Corporate Debtor was under the garnishee orders from the dates prior to initiation of CIRP, it does not form part of the liquidation estate – CS Dr Ahalada Rao Vummenthala, Liquidator of Kadevi Industries Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT, Hyderabad Bench observed that in the present instance, the account having a balance of Rs. 18,61,866 was under the garnishee orders of much larger amounts from the different Tax Authorities from the dates prior to initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. This amount was unavailable to the Corporate Debtor prior to the commencement of the CIRP, and as such, it does not form part of the liquidation estate.

If a bank account of the Corporate Debtor was under the garnishee orders from the dates prior to initiation of CIRP, it does not form part of the liquidation estate – CS Dr Ahalada Rao Vummenthala, Liquidator of Kadevi Industries Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

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

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

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 »

Scroll to Top