Mr. Chandra Bhan Singh

NCLT directs to Bank unfreeze the bank account of the Corporate Debtor and allow the Liquidator to manage its operations – Liquidator of Asis Global Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Liquidator against the Respondent Dy. Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 1) and Axis Bank Limited (Respondent No. 2) seeking direction from this Tribunal to unfreeze/lift the attachment on the Bank Account of the Corporate Debtor maintained by Axis Bank (Respondent No.2)

NCLT referring judgment in Om Prakash Agarwal Vs Tax Recovery Officer 4 & Anr. [2020] ibclaw.in 75 NCLT and Ram Ratan Modi (RP of Duncans Industries Ltd.) Vs. ICICI Bank (2021) ibclaw.in 71 NCLT directed the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 1) and Axis Bank Limited (Respondent No. 2) to lift its lien/attachment over the bank accounts  maintained with Respondent No. 2 bank. The respondent No.2 i.e. Axis Bank Limited is further directed to unfreeze the bank account of the Corporate Debtor and allow the applicant to manage its operations.

NCLT directs to Bank unfreeze the bank account of the Corporate Debtor and allow the Liquidator to manage its operations – Liquidator of Asis Global Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Bad commercial business decision cannot be considered to be fraudulent or wrongful trading under provisions of Section 66 of the IBC – Mr. Venkatesan Sankaranarayanan, the RP for RTIL Ltd. Vs. Mr. Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal & Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 5 minutes of reading

The Adjudicating Authority held that it is a fact that management of company have taken certain decision which has not worked out as intended by the management and eventually loss occurred. However, such bad commercial business decision cannot be considered to be fraudulent or wrongful trading under provisions of Section 66 of the IBC. The Bench in conclusion, therefore is of the view that the transaction review report has only highlighted that certain transaction may be potential fraudulent transaction. However, the transaction review report does not have any reference to siphoning of or diversion of funds in any manner. Therefore, there is no credible rational input based on which a Section 66 application can be entertained and application deserves to be dismissed.

Bad commercial business decision cannot be considered to be fraudulent or wrongful trading under provisions of Section 66 of the IBC – Mr. Venkatesan Sankaranarayanan, the RP for RTIL Ltd. Vs. Mr. Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal & Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

No notice issued under Section 79 of the State GST/CGST Act can be acted upon by any Central/ State Authority against the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP – Mr. Ashutosh Agarwala, RP of Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kolkata – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

NCLT observed that as far as Section 83 of the GST Legislation is concerned, it is a settled position of law that attachment of assets of Corporate Debtor during CIRP drastically affects the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and therefore NCLT/ NCLAT time and again have issued directions to release the assets so attached u/s 83 of the GST Legislation following Sections 14 and 238 of the IBC. With respect to attachment of assets of a Company undergoing CIRP following Section 79 of the GST Act 2017 constitute violation of the ‘moratorium’ imposed under Section 14 of the IBC which explicitly prohibits any action to recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, no notice issued u/s 79 of the State GST/ CGST Act can be acted upon by any Central/ State Authority against the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP.

No notice issued under Section 79 of the State GST/CGST Act can be acted upon by any Central/ State Authority against the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP – Mr. Ashutosh Agarwala, RP of Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kolkata – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Service of Record Management and Record Retrieval to the Resolution Professional are critical in nature – Ratan India Finance Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

NCLT found that the refusal of the Respondent to deny access to the RP to the Business record of the Corporate Debtor is in contrary to Section 18 and 25 of the Code. The Bench notes that the business record of the Company is an indelible right of the Resolution Professional and a contractual duty of the Respondent which it has failed to perform. In view of this the Bench, the Bench is of the views and as pleaded by the Corporate Debtor that the Corporate is entitled for cost incurred by the Respondent under Section 235A of the Code.

Service of Record Management and Record Retrieval to the Resolution Professional are critical in nature – Ratan India Finance Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top