Janab Mohammed Ajmal

Salary not paid during CIRP period – Ankit Agrawal Vs. Devang Sampat, RP of Nicomet Industries Ltd  – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Adjudicating Authority observed that in view of the liquidation order dated 16.12.2020, the Applicants are directed to approach the liquidator with proper details of their claims in respect of the salary dues for the CIRP period. The liquidator shall decide the same in accordance with law. Applicant No. 4 has claimed a sum of Rs. 69,73,619/- towards superannuation benefits apart from salary during CIRP. As far as this claim is concerned, major portion of the claim relates to pre-CIRP period and thus he has to file the claim as an Operational Creditor and the liquidator should consider the same in accordance with Law.

Salary not paid during CIRP period – Ankit Agrawal Vs. Devang Sampat, RP of Nicomet Industries Ltd  – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

An application of the force majeure clause would require an incisive judicial enquiry, it would not be possible for Adjudicating Authority to go there into by in a summary proceeding – Atul Rajwadkar, Liquidator for Gupta Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ranjan Agarwal – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Adjudicating Authority held that in our considered opinion the detailed appraisal of the terms and conditions of the lease and their ramifications including application of the force majeure clause would require an incisive judicial enquiry. It would not be possible for this Authority to go there into by in a summary proceeding as the present one. Since the Corporate Debtor is under CIRP, it would also be not appropriate for the Respondent to continue in the lease premises. His continuance in the shop would thwart the resolution process and would frustrate the object of the Code. It would accordingly be appropriate to direct the Respondent to handover the vacant possession of the shop room to the Applicant. The Applicant may approach the appropriate judicial forum for realisation of the outstanding rent. The realisation of the rent for the period of lockdown imposed in the area would be prejudicial. It would however be open to the appropriate judicial authority to consider the matter in the light of the effect of the pandemic on business establishments. Moreover when the Respondent did not do any business during the period.(p5-6)

An application of the force majeure clause would require an incisive judicial enquiry, it would not be possible for Adjudicating Authority to go there into by in a summary proceeding – Atul Rajwadkar, Liquidator for Gupta Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ranjan Agarwal – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

The sine qua non for civil contempt is ‘wilful disobedience’. The disobedience or otherwise of an order would have to be gleaned from the conduct of the contemnor subsequent to the order – Prakash K. Pandya, Liquidator of Varun Corporation Ltd. Vs. Modest & Parsons International Private Limited – NCLT Mumbai Bench

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

The sine qua non for civil contempt is ‘wilful disobedience’. The disobedience or otherwise of an order would have to be gleaned from the conduct of the contemnor subsequent to the order – Prakash K. Pandya, Liquidator of Varun Corporation Ltd. Vs. Modest & Parsons International Private Limited – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Since the payment of the property dues is assured under Section 53 of the Code, in our considered opinion the lien on the property deserves to be lifted. The Applicant is accordingly entitled to protection in terms of Section 60(5) of the Code read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Shantanu T. Ray, Liquidator of Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Grup Grampanchayat Tambati – NCLT Mumbai Bench

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

Since the payment of the property dues is assured under Section 53 of the Code, in our considered opinion the lien on the property deserves to be lifted. The Applicant is accordingly entitled to protection in terms of Section 60(5) of the Code read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Shantanu T. Ray, Liquidator of Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Grup Grampanchayat Tambati – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top