11

A Corporate Debtor in respect of whom a liquidation order has been made is not entitled to make application to initiate CIRP against other Corporate Debtor – Abhay N. Manudhane Vs.Gupta Coal India Pvt. Ltd – NCLAT

In view of specific prohibition under Section 11 of the Code. As clause (d) of Section 11, a ‘Corporate Debtor’ in respect of whom a liquidation order has been made is not entitled to make application to initiate ‘CIRP’ under Chapter II. That means, it cannot file any application under Sections 7 or 9 of the Code. Therefore, no application under Chapter II can be filed by the ‘Corporate Debtor’, which is under Liquidation of which the Appellant is Liquidator. In so far as, sub-section (5) of Section 33 is concerned, it is subject to Section 52. Section 52 relates to right of secured creditor in liquidation proceedings. However, in case where matter does not relate to any secured asset and recovery of any money by the ‘Corporate Debtor’, which is not under Liquidation, a suit or other legal proceedings may be instituted by the Liquidator on behalf of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, but not an application under Section 9 of the Code.

A Corporate Debtor in respect of whom a liquidation order has been made is not entitled to make application to initiate CIRP against other Corporate Debtor – Abhay N. Manudhane Vs.Gupta Coal India Pvt. Ltd – NCLAT Read Post »

For initiation of CIRP by reference under sub-section (b) of Sec. 4 of SIC Repeal Act, 2003 and Fast Tract CIRP, prohibition u/s 11 is not applicable – Pratima P. Shah (Ex-Director Amar Remedies Limited) Vs. IDBI Bank Limited – NCLAT

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

For initiation of CIRP by reference under sub-section (b) of Sec. 4 of SIC Repeal Act, 2003 and Fast Tract CIRP, prohibition u/s 11 is not applicable – Pratima P. Shah (Ex-Director Amar Remedies Limited) Vs. IDBI Bank Limited – NCLAT Read Post »

Section 11 of IBC, the bar only operates against the Corporate Debtor against whom a liquidation order has been made and not to a Financial Creditor or an Operational Creditor – Forech India Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.-SC

Section 11 of the Code specifies which persons are not eligible to initiate proceedings under it. This Section is of limited application and only bars a corporate debtor from initiating a petition under Section 10 of the Code in respect of whom a liquidation order has been made. From a reading of this Section, it does not follow that until a liquidation order has been made against the corporate debtor, an Insolvency Petition may be filed under Section 7 or Section 9 as the case may be, as has been held by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, any reference to Section 11 in the context of the problem before us is wholly irrelevant.

Section 11 of IBC, the bar only operates against the Corporate Debtor against whom a liquidation order has been made and not to a Financial Creditor or an Operational Creditor – Forech India Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.-SC Read Post »

Whether corporate debtor undergoing CIRP filing Application under section 9 of the Code, 2016 can file it in the capacity of Operational Creditor or Corporate Debtor/ Corporate Applicant for Corporate Debtor against the same or another corporate debtor – M/s Mandhana Industries Ltd. Vs.  M/s Instyle Exports Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court -IV

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

Whether corporate debtor undergoing CIRP filing Application under section 9 of the Code, 2016 can file it in the capacity of Operational Creditor or Corporate Debtor/ Corporate Applicant for Corporate Debtor against the same or another corporate debtor – M/s Mandhana Industries Ltd. Vs.  M/s Instyle Exports Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court -IV Read Post »

If in a particular case order of winding up has already been passed by the Hon’ble High Court and is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, such winding up proceedings being saved by the Code, Section 238 of the Code will not override the effect on such winding up proceedings – Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. Kumar Motors Private Limited – NCLAT New Delhi

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

If in a particular case order of winding up has already been passed by the Hon’ble High Court and is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, such winding up proceedings being saved by the Code, Section 238 of the Code will not override the effect on such winding up proceedings – Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. Kumar Motors Private Limited – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If a winding up proceeding has been passed & is pending against the Corporate Debtor, application u/s 10 of code at the instance of the corporate applicant is not maintainable in view of the bar imposed u/s 11(d) of Code- Ameya Laboratories Ltd(ALL) Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank – NCLAT

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

If a winding up proceeding has been passed & is pending against the Corporate Debtor, application u/s 10 of code at the instance of the corporate applicant is not maintainable in view of the bar imposed u/s 11(d) of Code- Ameya Laboratories Ltd(ALL) Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank – NCLAT Read Post »

Whether the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 65 of the Code is legal or not- M/s. Unigreen Global Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank – NCLAT

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

Whether the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 65 of the Code is legal or not- M/s. Unigreen Global Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top