60 (4)

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 »

Whether the High Court ought to interfere, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, with an Order passed by the NCLT in a proceeding under the Code- M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors – Supreme Court

Though NCLT and NCLAT would have jurisdiction to enquire into questions of fraud, they would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes such as those arising under MMDR Act, 1957 and the rules issued thereunder, especially when the disputes revolve around decisions of statutory or quasijudicial authorities, which can be corrected only by way of judicial review of administrative action. Hence, the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition.

Whether the High Court ought to interfere, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, with an Order passed by the NCLT in a proceeding under the Code- M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors – Supreme Court Read Post »

Section 14(3) of the Code (introduced vide 2018 amendment) which states that provisions of moratorium shall not apply to a surety in a contract of guarantee for corporate debtor, is retrospective – State Bank of India Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Anr.- Supreme Court

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

Section 14(3) of the Code (introduced vide 2018 amendment) which states that provisions of moratorium shall not apply to a surety in a contract of guarantee for corporate debtor, is retrospective – State Bank of India Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Anr.- Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top