2 Judge Bench

When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute | Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring pre-existing dispute before NCLT – German Solar Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Zytech Solar India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) The contract can be either oral or written. When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute.
(ii) Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring relevant materials before the adjudicating authority to establish that there is pre-existing dispute which may lead to the rejection of Section 9 application.
(iii) Pre-existing dispute employed under the IBC cannot be equated with even the principle of preponderance of probability which guides a civil court at the stage of finally decreeing a suit.
(iv) The IBC is not intended to be a substitute for a recovery forum.

When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute | Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring pre-existing dispute before NCLT – German Solar Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Zytech Solar India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

If the ground of no personal hearing was granted by Arbitrator was not raised in the petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under Section 37 – Gopal Krishan Rathi Vs. Dr. R.Palani – Madras High Court

The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that on the first ground that no personal hearing was granted, though in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 almost 31 grounds were raised, this was not one of the grounds. Moreover, the Appellant, to a specific query posed by us, was candid that this ground was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in our view, this cannot be raised now at the stage of appeal under Section 37 of the said Act, appellant having accepted the position.

If the ground of no personal hearing was granted by Arbitrator was not raised in the petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under Section 37 – Gopal Krishan Rathi Vs. Dr. R.Palani – Madras High Court Read Post »

Even if there is no plea raised regarding limitation, the Court is obliged to examine the question of limitation before further proceeding in any matter | Default in the case of Personal Guarantors arises when the guarantees were invoked making them liable to pay the debt – Bank of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Mr. Suraj Bharatkumar Parekh – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that it is well settled that even if there is no plea raised regarding limitation, the Court is obliged to examine the question of limitation before further proceeding in any matter. The default in the case of Personal Guarantors arises when the guarantees were invoked making them liable to pay the debt. Generally, the default date of the principal borrower is the date of default for the guarantor also. However, it may not always be the same, rather it depends upon the nature and contents of the deed of guarantee executed by the guarantor.

Even if there is no plea raised regarding limitation, the Court is obliged to examine the question of limitation before further proceeding in any matter | Default in the case of Personal Guarantors arises when the guarantees were invoked making them liable to pay the debt – Bank of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Mr. Suraj Bharatkumar Parekh – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Resolution Professional cannot accept any claim which has been adjudicated during the moratorium – The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Mr. Rajendra Jain, RP of Kimaya Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that the applicant being the EPF authority has raised certain demands which were adjudicated during the CIRP period which was after the initiation of the moratorium under Sec. 14(1) of IBC, when no assessment proceedings can be continued by the applicant irrespective of whether certain documents were sought from the Resolution Professional. This does not, however, as per Sec. 33 (5) prohibit the applicant to continue with or even initiation of proceedings after the liquidation order is passed. When the liquidation order is passed, the moratorium ends which enables the protected assets of the Corporate Debtor to be free of any further consideration under liquidation estate.

Resolution Professional cannot accept any claim which has been adjudicated during the moratorium – The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Mr. Rajendra Jain, RP of Kimaya Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Liability arises on the part of Corporate Debtor in respect of sale agreement, which, being in the nature of a financial lease under Ind AS, is covered under Section 5(8)(d) of the Code? – Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Mr. Amit Agarwal – NCLT Principal Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Principal Bench is of the view that the judgment, in Sandeep Mittal v. ASREC (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2024) ibclaw.in 573 NCLAT relied by Corporate Debtor is on a different footing based on a different factual matrix in which primarily the ingredients of Section 5(8)(f) of the Code were covered whereas in the present case ingredients of Section 5(8)(d) of the Code is applicable wherein it is a case of liability of Corporate Debtor, as is in the form a financial lease with the element of time value of money being incorporated in the agreement to sale itself and part transacted and balance defaulted with interest liability.

Liability arises on the part of Corporate Debtor in respect of sale agreement, which, being in the nature of a financial lease under Ind AS, is covered under Section 5(8)(d) of the Code? – Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Mr. Amit Agarwal – NCLT Principal Bench Read Post »

‘Contemplate’ would mean to deliberate and consider whether regard being had to the facts and circumstances pleaded, any urgent relief is called for | An ‘urgent interim relief’ would mean that the matter cannot wait for the initial period of three months as required under Section 12A(3) of the Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 – Asa International India Microfinance Ltd. Vs. Northern ARC Capital Ltd. and Anr. – Calcutta High Court

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that:

(i) Section 12A of the 2015 Act requires the court to ascertain whether the suit contemplates any urgent interim relief arising out of a commercial dispute as defined in the said Act.
(ii) ‘Contemplate’ would mean to deliberate and consider whether regard being had to the facts and circumstances pleaded, any urgent relief is called for. It would imply that a die is cast and bolt impending and the act is done in expectation of and with a view to it, or that the dispute is already existing and the act is done in support to one side of it. The judge is required to consider and apply its mind to the facts and take a decision keeping in mind that such relief is ex parte.
(iii) An ‘urgent interim relief’ would mean that the matter cannot wait for the initial period of three months as required under Section 12A (3) of the Commercial Courts, Act, 2015. On a reading of a pleading the court has to be satisfied that if the court does not immediately intervene in spite of plaintiff fulfilling the trinity tests namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury and allow the plaintiff to institute the suit only after the expiry of the statutory period, it would be an injustice to the plaintiff and the situation may be irreversible.

‘Contemplate’ would mean to deliberate and consider whether regard being had to the facts and circumstances pleaded, any urgent relief is called for | An ‘urgent interim relief’ would mean that the matter cannot wait for the initial period of three months as required under Section 12A(3) of the Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 – Asa International India Microfinance Ltd. Vs. Northern ARC Capital Ltd. and Anr. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings – Ranga Raju Kosuri and Anr. Vs. Paradise Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

It is well established that under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings. This ensures majority rule while safeguarding minority rights, thus promoting accountability and fairness in corporate governance. Therefore, unless there is a clear violation of minority rights, the majority prevails.

Under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings – Ranga Raju Kosuri and Anr. Vs. Paradise Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

The power of re-call does not mean to hear the case – Mr. Chintala Maipal Reddy and Ors. Vs. Mr. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty Liquidator of Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

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

The power of re-call does not mean to hear the case – Mr. Chintala Maipal Reddy and Ors. Vs. Mr. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty Liquidator of Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Whether the admission of Corporate Debtor into CIRP can be kept in abeyance based on the order of Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd? – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

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

Whether the admission of Corporate Debtor into CIRP can be kept in abeyance based on the order of Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd? – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Is an application under Section 7 of the IBC maintainable against the interest portion only? – Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Sunblink Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the present petition has been filed on the basis of default in payment of interest on the amounts due arising for the period after the 10A period in terms of clause 4.1 and 4.2 of Loan Agreement. The said amount in default is in excess of Rs. 1.00 crores and default is stated to have taken place on 12.02.2024 i.e. after 15 working days subsequent to the issuance of the Demand Notice dated 25.01.2024. There has been a financial debt in respect of which default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor and further that the Application has been filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the Application u/s 7 of the Code, deserves to be admitted.

Is an application under Section 7 of the IBC maintainable against the interest portion only? – Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Sunblink Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top