Mr. Indevar Pandey

Section 33(2) of the IBC leaves hardly any choice to the Adjudicating Authority, once the CoC decide with the 66% voting rights to liquidate the Corporate Debtor – Amrit Rajani Vs. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Section 33(2) of the IBC leaves hardly any choice to the Adjudicating Authority, once the CoC decide with the 66% voting rights to liquidate the Corporate Debtor – Amrit Rajani Vs. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Any acknowledgement of debt by the principal borrower is also considered an acknowledgement by the guarantor under the Limitation Act, 1963 – State Bank of India Vs. Gourishankar Poddar and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that the liability of the Corporate Debtor and the guarantor are co-terminus. Thus, liability for guarantor would arise only when amounts became and went due by the Corporate Debtor. Consequently, any acknowledgement of debt by the principal borrower is also considered an acknowledgement by the guarantor under the Act of 1963. The period of limitation against the guarantor starts only when a demand is raised from the guarantor specifically. In case of continued payments by a principal borrower, no demand would be raised against a guarantor and thus limitation does not commence.

Any acknowledgement of debt by the principal borrower is also considered an acknowledgement by the guarantor under the Limitation Act, 1963 – State Bank of India Vs. Gourishankar Poddar and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can WhatsApp conversations between parties be used as evidence to establish a dispute under Section 9 of the IBC? – Straw Commodities LLP Vs. Anram Agro Trading Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that once there is no dispute that there has been conversation between the Parties, even on WhatsApp which is a common mode of communication these days, it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellant to contradict the same on the basis of the Judgment in the case of Kashyap lnfraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2024) ibclaw.in 787 NCLAT.

Can WhatsApp conversations between parties be used as evidence to establish a dispute under Section 9 of the IBC? – Straw Commodities LLP Vs. Anram Agro Trading Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can Section 60(5) of the IBC be invoked for filing contempt petitions? – Mr. Pankaj Dhanuka, Liquidator of Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. Vs. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

In this case, the following issues are covered:
(i) Contempt proceeding provisions under the Companies Act, 2013.
(ii) Can Section 60(5) of the IBC be attracted for filing of contempt petitions?
(iii) No contempt proceedings would be tenable, as against the inanimate or juristic person.
(iv) Appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act will not lie as against the order of rejection of the contempt petition.

Can Section 60(5) of the IBC be invoked for filing contempt petitions? – Mr. Pankaj Dhanuka, Liquidator of Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. Vs. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

The default which has occurred when the notices were issued for drawing the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, reckoning of the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 the Limitation Act, since has been given a retrospective effect for the purposes of the proceeding under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC – Canara Bank Vs. DAAJ Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that commission of a default consciously means, that it is an expression of default when it is realized and accepted by the Financial Creditor and accepted by the Corporate Debtor when the notices under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued and accepted by the Corporate Debtor. The aspect of default as defined under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was to be reckoned from the date notice is issued. It does not mean a debt when held or any part or instalment of the amount becomes due to be payable, but not paid.

The default which has occurred when the notices were issued for drawing the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, reckoning of the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 the Limitation Act, since has been given a retrospective effect for the purposes of the proceeding under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC – Canara Bank Vs. DAAJ Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Can Financers maintain the application under Section 7 of the IBC in invoice/ bill discounting cases – Varun Gupta Vs. ISINOX Pvt. Ltd. Through the IRP Mr. Manishkumar R. Patel and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT referring Minions Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TDT Copper Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 209 NCLAT held that the case would not be covered by Section 5(8)(e) of IBC rather it shall be covered by Section 5(20) and 5(21) of the Code and hence the application filed under Section 7 is not maintainable.

Can Financers maintain the application under Section 7 of the IBC in invoice/ bill discounting cases – Varun Gupta Vs. ISINOX Pvt. Ltd. Through the IRP Mr. Manishkumar R. Patel and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Boorugu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. in Consortium with Vishwanath Projects Ltd. Vs. Birendra Kumar Agarwal RP of Manjeera Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

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

Boorugu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. in Consortium with Vishwanath Projects Ltd. Vs. Birendra Kumar Agarwal RP of Manjeera Retail Holding Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top