Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
M. Chakravarthi Vs. Sawhney Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Shri Maruti Electrical Enterprises Ltd. Vs. SAS Real Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
The grievance of the Appellant is that the Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the ‘I&B Code’) is pending for one year since January 2019. NCLAT held that in the circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, direct the Adjudicating Authority to decide the Application under Section 7 of the I&B Code in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr. [2017] ibclaw.in 02 SC”. In absence of any stay order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and as per the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code should have been decided within 14 days. The Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Anil Chandanmal Singhvi Vs. Union of India & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
M/s Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. Vs. Macquarie Bank Ltd.- NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
D. Muthukumar Vs. A. Premkumar & Another – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
NCLAT held that the procedure as followed in “Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills – 77, Gurgaon’ shows curtailment of period of resolution without asking for resolution plan from the third party before finalisation of the resolution plan. The resolution can be taken even during the corporate insolvency resolution process, if any Promoter as investor agrees to invest the money for keeping the company as a going concern and complete the project within the time frame. In view of the fact that part of the infrastructure (Apartments/Flats) has already been completed, the allottees (Financial Creditors) were the main beneficiaries of the infrastructure have already reached settlement with the Promoter and the fact that the Promoter as an outsider financial creditor has agreed to invest the amount, not from the account of the Corporate Debtor but from other sources to keep the infrastructure as a going concern.
NCLAT held that if the Corporate Debtor is in the business of selling the flats/ apartments/ shops to allottee(s). It is for the Resolution Professional to find out as to who is the allottee in whose favour the Promoter Dagcon (India) Pvt. Ltd. has reached settlement/ Agreement or issued receipts of payments for such allotment and any other documents in support of such claim as may be produced. On receiving of such receipts, if it is found that the flats/ apartments/ shops etc. are to be completed or is completed and ready to be handed over, the ‘Resolution Professional’ is bound to proceed in accordance with law and the guidelines issued in “Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills-77” uninfluenced by the terms of agreement part of the said judgment.
