NCLT-Jaipur Bench

Whether TDS deduction and deposit by the Corporate Debtor itself proves that there is Financial Debt – M/s. Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. Vs. M/s. Samdari Strips Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench

/ 5 minutes of reading

NCLT Jaipur Bench held that it is true that the deduction of TDS and deposit by the Corporate Debtor does not itself prove that there is any financial debt but the deduction of TDS and deposit in Form 26AS under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act clearly proves that the deduction which was deposited was TDS relating to Interest other than interest on securities. Form 26AS was filed by the Financial Creditor along with the present petition under Section 7 of the Code, 2016 supporting the case of the Applicant that the loan which was granted to the Corporate Debtor was with interest.

Whether TDS deduction and deposit by the Corporate Debtor itself proves that there is Financial Debt – M/s. Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. Vs. M/s. Samdari Strips Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench Read Post »

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court, no restoration of CIRP is allowed on settlement failed – Gagan Deep Singh Dugal Vs. M/s Ninaniya Estates Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

In this case, an application has been filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, to restore the captioned petition and revive the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on account of breach of the settlement arrived between the parties.
NCLT held that the Applicant himself has mentioned in the written arguments that more than 90% of the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor. IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court. The Corporate Debtor had paid a sum of Rs. 9,67,00,000/- which is 93.40% of the total outstanding liability. The law on the subject has been categorically laid down by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of SRLK Enterprises LLP Vs Jalan Transolutions (India) Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 189 NCLAT. Hence time and again it has been expressed and explained by the various Courts that the Provisions of IBC, 2016 are not for the recovery of money; but here the intent of the Applicant reveals that the Applicant invokes the provisions of IBC,2016 in order to enforce recovery against the Corporate Debtor; the same should not be allowed.

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court, no restoration of CIRP is allowed on settlement failed – Gagan Deep Singh Dugal Vs. M/s Ninaniya Estates Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench Read Post »

NCLT terminates CIRP of Rajasthan Land Holdings Ltd.(going on from 4 years) on the ground that the funds were always available with the Corporate Debtor to satisfy its claim but still continue the CIRP with malicious motive and also limits the fee of Resolution Professional – IL&FS Transportation Networks Ltd. Vs. Anuradha Gupta, RP of Rajasthan Land Holdings Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench

/ 9 minutes of reading

The CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was admitted on 24.09.2019(approx. 4 years). The Adjudicating Authority observed that we cannot fathom any reason why the RP has gone forward with the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor when the Company had cash of Rs. 3.68 crores on the CIRP admission date and is able to settle the Operational Debt raised by the Operational Creditors which is amounting to a total of Rs. 25 Lakhs approx. The RP has mentioned the CIRP cost of Rs. 73.31 lakhs out of which the RP fees is Rs 41.13 lakhs and the Legal fees is Rs. 16.71 Lacs, when the claim of the OCs was only Rs. 26.76 lakhs. There appears no reasonable explanation with respect to the conduct of the RP of conducting a CIRP which costed three times the debt which is due by the Corporate Debtor. The RP is an officer of the court and ought to have informed this Adjudicating Authority that there is no need for conducting the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor as the Corporate Debtor has availability of funds to settle its dues against the Operational Creditors. It is a clear case of some hidden motives and misuse of IBC and apparently gives rise to the suspicion of understanding among certain parties to continue the CIRP for some oblique purpose and till the amount lying in the account of the CD is exhausted as the CoC is not bearing the CIRP expenses. In view of the termination of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

NCLT terminates CIRP of Rajasthan Land Holdings Ltd.(going on from 4 years) on the ground that the funds were always available with the Corporate Debtor to satisfy its claim but still continue the CIRP with malicious motive and also limits the fee of Resolution Professional – IL&FS Transportation Networks Ltd. Vs. Anuradha Gupta, RP of Rajasthan Land Holdings Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top