Mr. Justice Sandeep K. Shinde

Additional Sessions Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by IBBI – Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India – Bombay High Court

Hon’ble High Court holds that the impugned proceedings have been instituted by the Respondents (Complainant) in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, were not sustainable for want of jurisdiction. As a consequence order, ‘issue process’ passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the Petitioners, in a complaint by the Respondents/Board was without jurisdiction and therefore not sustainable equally. It is therefore to be held that Special Court “which is to try offences under the I.B. Code is the Special Court established under Section 435(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 which consists of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

Additional Sessions Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by IBBI – Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Whether successful resolution applicant was eligible to invoke Section 32A of IBC, when appeals against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, were pending before NCLAT? – Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Bombay High Court

Hon’ble High Court, on question whether Section 32A(1)(a) of IBC lays down a direction that, Corporate Debtor, would be absolved of all criminal offences committed prior to commencement of CRIP, from the date of approval of Resolution Plan, although, appeals against Section 31 order of the IBC were pending before the NCLAT?, held that immunities under 32A of IBC cannot be denied to Corporate Debtor since the immunities sought by the Corporate Debtor though conditional; yet all these conditions have been fulfilled and satisfied; viz
(i) Resolution Plan in regard to Corporate Debtor has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 IBC.
(ii) Resolution Plan approved caused and resulted in change in management of Corporate Debtor.
(iii) change in management is in favour of persons who were not related to party of Corporate Debtor.
On question, whether successful resolution applicant was eligible to invoke Section 32A of IBC, when appeals against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, were pending before NCLAT?, the Court held that the application preferred by the successful resolution person, was not pre-matured.

Whether successful resolution applicant was eligible to invoke Section 32A of IBC, when appeals against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, were pending before NCLAT? – Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Section 53 of RERA does not empower the tribunal to exercise all the powers, which are available to the Civil Court – Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Rajesh Sonebapu Mundhe and Ors. – Bombay High Court

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

Section 53 of RERA does not empower the tribunal to exercise all the powers, which are available to the Civil Court – Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Rajesh Sonebapu Mundhe and Ors. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top