Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Soc Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Bombay High Court
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 […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that:
(i) The approved resolution plan is compulsorily, the word used is ‘shall’, binding not only on the corporate debtor and its employees, members and creditors but, and this is important, also on the Central Government, any State Government or any Local Authority to whom a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is owed as also guarantors and other stakeholders.
(ii) The resolution plan had to provide for known dues to the Central or State Government or any local authority. These had to form part of the plan. But this also means that if the plan was approved without provision being made for any amounts due to the Central or State Government or local authorities, then that approved resolution plan without those approved debts would also be binding on those authorities, i.e., those would not be amounts recoverable.
(iii) The resolution applicant starts on a clean slate.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Agarwal Associates & Agencies Vs. Vinay Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »
In the case of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Vs. Triller, Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) The Triller owes money, it is refusing to pay in monetary terms or needs time to repay which is not acceptable to the Zee Entertainment Enterprises. It is not a company based in India but only an intermediary.
(ii) It is certainly not an attempt to circumvent the provisions of Section 12-A particularly when at least two or three attempts to settle the matter have failed.
(iii) The reliance on the judgement in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Dilip Kumar Rungta is unacceptable as there is a clear case of urgent interim relief made out which carves out an exception to the mandate.
(iii) Triller to pay a sum of US $300,000, i.e., Rs. 2,44,26,480/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon from 27th January 2023 till payment and/or realization.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Hikal Ltd. Vs. Paxchem Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »
Hon’ble High Court held that NCLT could never sit in appeal over the judgment/decree of a Civil Court. Such a judgment/decree can only be corrected in appeal and, therefore, the NCLT would not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the First Appeal. Section 231 creates a bar on the jurisdiction of a civil court only where the Adjudicating Authority (i.e., NCLT in this case) has the jurisdiction over a given issue. The moratorium that is imposed under Section 14 applies only to proceedings against the corporate debtor and only applies qua the assets and properties of the corporate debtor. If monies deposited in court or any other asset/property does not belong to the corporate debtor, the moratorium would not preclude/prevent a creditor from enforcing its rights against the monies/assets/properties.