Mr. Justice V. Narasingh

In terms of Section 31 of IBC, all demands raised against the Corporate Debtor pertaining to the period prior to the Resolution Plan effective date stand automatically extinguished in terms of approved Resolution Plan – Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha and Ors. – Orissa High Court

Hon’ble Orissa High Court held that:
(i) Successful Resolution Applicant should start with fresh slate on the basis of the Resolution Plan approved shunning its prior status as Corporate Debtor
(ii) Upon approval of the Resolution Plan, the Corporate Debtor no more stands as the Corporate Debtor and it is only under the legal obligation as being in the management of the Corporate Debtor strictly in terms of the Resolution Plan.
(iii) In terms of Section 31 of IBC, all those impugned demands raised against the Corporate Debtor pertaining to the period prior to the Plan Effective Date stand automatically extinguished in terms of Approved Resolution Plan.

In terms of Section 31 of IBC, all demands raised against the Corporate Debtor pertaining to the period prior to the Resolution Plan effective date stand automatically extinguished in terms of approved Resolution Plan – Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha and Ors. – Orissa High Court Read Post »

Whether District Consumer Commission under provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has jurisdiction to stay auction under SARFAESI – Union Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal and Anr. – Orissa High Court

Hon’ble Orissa High Court held that:

(i) There cannot be any iota of doubt that the expression “other authority” under Section 34 will encompass the “Consumer Commissions”.
(ii) If the provisions of Section 35 of SARFAESI Act read with Section 37 thereof is juxtaposed with Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the irresistible conclusion is that any action that is taken or contemplated under the SARFAESI Act or RDDB Act has to be governed by the SARFAESI Act or RDDB Act alone and all other laws save and except those as find mentioned in Section 37 of SARFAESI Act have to yield to the same.
(iii) The maxim “ignoratia juris no excusat” applies in equal measure to all including the Consumer Commissions. The least that can be expected from the President and the Members of the District Commissions that before passing any order relating to any alleged violation vis-à-vis the provisions of any Special Act they will test the propositions claiming the reliefs on the touchstone of law governing the field which would enable them not to embark upon a journey which will lead to avoidable litigation and denude the faith of the common man in the fairness and effectiveness of the redressal mechanism and which will also not render otiose, the intent of the legislature in enacting Special Statues.

Whether District Consumer Commission under provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has jurisdiction to stay auction under SARFAESI – Union Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal and Anr. – Orissa High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top