Justice Ajay Rastogi

If someone has been called upon to participate in the bidding process, the facts must be made clear to the parties – Mohd. Shariq Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellant has come with the bona fide defence that he was never informed on the date when the auction was held or day thereafter that the substantive proceedings are pending before the DRT instituted at the instance of the borrower. As a man of ordinary prudence, if someone has been called upon to participate in the bidding process, the facts must be made clear to the parties for the reason that there is always a high variance between market realizable value and the distress value of the mortgaged property when put to public auction under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

If someone has been called upon to participate in the bidding process, the facts must be made clear to the parties – Mohd. Shariq Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether declaration of ownership over Trademarks after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC, which is not a part of Resolution Plan amount to modification or alteration of approved Resolution Plan – Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund Vs. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers & Others – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it clearly indicates that what was approved by the CoC with 81.39% of its voting is to the effect that the Corporate Debtor has a perpetual exclusive right to use the brands, namely, “Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi” and it nowhere indicates regarding the right of ownership over the trademarks/brands, “Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi” of the Corporate Debtor. But the Adjudicating Authority while adjudicating application I.A. No.155 of 2018, apart from upholding the exclusive right to use the trademarks, “Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi”, made a further declaration that trademarks belong to Corporate Debtor/DCHL under its order dated 14th August, 2019, which, in our view, was a modification/alteration in the approved Resolution Plan which indisputably is impermissible in law and this what the NCLAT in para 32 of its impugned order has observed.

Whether declaration of ownership over Trademarks after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC, which is not a part of Resolution Plan amount to modification or alteration of approved Resolution Plan – Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund Vs. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers & Others – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top