65 (2)

Section 65 of IBC has to be read as enabling provision to reject an application even on proving of debt and default Section 10 Application is not to be obligatorily admitted – Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Taneja & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that when finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority is that Section 10 application has been initiated fraudulently and maliciously, even if there is debt and default, the Adjudicating Authority is not obliged to admit Section 10 Application. Section 10 and Section 65, which are part of the same statutory scheme needs to be read together to give effect to the legislative scheme of the Code. In event CIRP is initiated by a corporate applicant fraudulently with malicious intent for any purpose other than the resolution of insolvency, holding it that it is obligatory for the Adjudicating Authority to admit Section 10 Application, will be contrary to the statutory scheme under Section 65. In event conditions under Section 65 are fulfilled, Section 10 Application can be rejected, even if debt and default is proved.

Section 65 of IBC has to be read as enabling provision to reject an application even on proving of debt and default Section 10 Application is not to be obligatorily admitted – Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Taneja & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

A Power of Attorney Holder is not competent to file an application on behalf of a Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor or Corporate Applicant, an authorised person has power to do so – Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Limited-NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT  held that a ‘Power of Attorney Holder’ is not competent to file an application on behalf of a ‘Financial Creditor’ or ‘Operational Creditor’ or ‘Corporate Applicant’. Further held that the ‘I&B Code’ is a complete Code by itself. The provision of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 cannot override the specific provision of a statute which requires that a particular act should be done by a person in the manner as prescribed thereunder.

A Power of Attorney Holder is not competent to file an application on behalf of a Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor or Corporate Applicant, an authorised person has power to do so – Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Limited-NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top