36 (3) (e)

Section 230 of Companies Act, 2013 which envisages one valuer cannot be the basis to bypass Liquidation Process Regulation 35 | Merely a Corporate Debtor has no valid or any marketable title the property, the value of the property cannot be described as Zero, the Registered Valuers are to value the property | Sharing of Valuation Reports with Potential Resolution Applicants by Liquidator is quite contrary to Liquidation Process Regulation 34(4) – Kineta Global Ltd. in consortium with Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai

In this landmark decision, Hon’ble NCLAT holds that:
(i) The requirement of Regulation 35 of the liquidation process Regulations is a separate one from the process mentioned under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 which envisages one valuer cannot be the basis to by pass the Regulation 35 of liquidation process Regulations.
(ii) Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is quite broader and wider in its purview and the Code, 2016
(iii) Merely because in respect of the title of the property, if a Corporate Debtor has no valid or any marketable title, ipso facto, the value of the property cannot be described as Zero. The Registered Valuers are to value the property.
(iv) The Sharing of the Valuation Reports with the Potential Resolution Applicants by the Liquidator is quite contrary to the Regulation 34(4) of the Liquidation Process Regulations.

Section 230 of Companies Act, 2013 which envisages one valuer cannot be the basis to bypass Liquidation Process Regulation 35 | Merely a Corporate Debtor has no valid or any marketable title the property, the value of the property cannot be described as Zero, the Registered Valuers are to value the property | Sharing of Valuation Reports with Potential Resolution Applicants by Liquidator is quite contrary to Liquidation Process Regulation 34(4) – Kineta Global Ltd. in consortium with Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Issue of claim any injunction before High Court during pendency of the Liquidation proceeding – Alliance Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. – Calcutta High Court

In this case, The Liquidator has refused to recognize the petitioner as secured creditor or to allow the petitioner to sell the pledged shares towards the partial satisfaction of the claim of the petitioner against the respondent. Hon’ble High Court held that as per Section 238 of the IBC, 2016 is having override effect in any other law for the time being in force. In view of my prima facie findings that this Court cannot pass any interim order at this stage. This Court is of the view that the matter in issue in the suit can be more appropriately and effectively decided and adjudicated by the NCLT. In the present case, Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 itself provides an additional bar by stating that no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred on the NCLT by the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue of claim any injunction before High Court during pendency of the Liquidation proceeding – Alliance Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top