Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit

Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is not applicable in cases where the Resolution Plan has been approved under the IBC – Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that:

(i) The Custom Dept. not having made any claim before the IRP during the CIRP process and the demand not having been part of the resolution plan, has stood extinguished and cannot be continued.
(ii) As per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, in the event a party to the appeal dies or is adjudicated as an insolvent or in the case of a company, is being wound up, the appeal would abate.
(iii) It is clear that Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 would not be attracted in a case where the resolution plan has been approved by the IBC.

Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is not applicable in cases where the Resolution Plan has been approved under the IBC – Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Pleadings Under Section 23(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Arbitral Tribunal would include the rejoinder or replication/surrejoinder filed with the permission of the Court – Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manyata Infrastructure Developments Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that in terms of Section 23(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal would include statement of claim, objections, counterclaim and objections to counterclaim. At this stage, it would be useful to refer Order VI Rule 1 of CPC which defines ‘pleading’. In terms of Order VI Rule 1 of CPC, ‘pleading’ shall mean plaint or written statement. Rejoinder or replication could be filed with the permission of the Court. When the rejoinder or replication is filed with the permission of the Court, then it would form part of pleadings. When this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file surrejoinder and in terms of the said liberty, the petitioner filed surrejoinder. When such surrejoinder is filed on the liberty granted by this Court, it would form part of the pleadings.

Pleadings Under Section 23(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Arbitral Tribunal would include the rejoinder or replication/surrejoinder filed with the permission of the Court – Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manyata Infrastructure Developments Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Whether the petitioner is in lawful possession under a valid lease or whether the petitioner is a protected tenant, DRT is to examine under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Mohammed Maqmoor Ateeq Vs. HDB Financial Services Ltd. – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that in the present proceedings, I decline to examine as to whether the petitioner is in lawful possession under a valid lease and whether such valid lease is made prior to the creation of mortgage by the borrower in favour of the respondent-Financial Institution or whether the petitioner is a protected tenant, since the same could be examined by the Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of the 2002 Act, which requires placing of evidence to decide the said question.(

Whether the petitioner is in lawful possession under a valid lease or whether the petitioner is a protected tenant, DRT is to examine under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Mohammed Maqmoor Ateeq Vs. HDB Financial Services Ltd. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top