Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Unless a Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ought not to be exercised – Mr. Rajan Chadha and Anr. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Arora and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
(i) To punish a contemnor, the disobedience should be willful. Element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to hold a party guilty of contempt. It has been held time and again that contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts, and the said proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof required in these proceedings, is beyond all reasonable doubt.
(ii) Since the company is undergoing CIRP, all the assets and management of the company are with the Resolution Professional. Further, the liability of loan installments, in the form of claim submitted by the South Indian Bank, is also with the Resolution Professional. Thus, the respondent no. 1 has no control over the assets, management and liabilities of the Company. Thus, it is manifest that the R1 has been unable to pay the EMIs to the bank due to his financial inability and constraints, due to circumstances, as brought forth before this Court.

Unless a Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ought not to be exercised – Mr. Rajan Chadha and Anr. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Arora and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The applicability of interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC, 2016, on the proceedings initiated by a Bank under SARFAESI Act, cannot be excluded merely because the bank has taken possession prior to commencement of the proceedings against Personal Guarantor under the IBC, 2016 – Sanjay Dhingra Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that after commencement of the insolvency proceedings under the IBC, 2016, against the petitioner, in his capacity as a personal guarantor with respect to default of a loan account, the interim moratorium shall be applicable to all the debts, including the debt owed by the petitioner to the respondent-bank, in his capacity as a personal guarantor, for which property in question was mortgaged by the petitioner, against which SARFAESI proceedings have been initiated by the bank.

The Hon’ble Court also held that judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Jeny Thankachan Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 918 HC does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The applicability of interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC, 2016, on the proceedings initiated by a Bank under SARFAESI Act, cannot be excluded merely because the bank has taken possession prior to commencement of the proceedings against Personal Guarantor under the IBC, 2016 – Sanjay Dhingra Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

High Court allows Ex-Director of Corporate Debtor to inspect of the record available with Resolution Professional – Shantanu Prakash Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court

In this case, SCNs issued by Bank to ex-director of Corporate Debtor for reporting of Fraud, however, complete documents, on the basis of which SCNs have been issued have not been provided.

Hon’ble High Court held that it is settled law that fair procedure and the Principles of Natural Justice require that the requisite documents, which form the basis of a SCN, ought to be provided to the concerned party in order to enable such party to submit a proper reply to answer all the allegations raised against it. No party can be expected to respond to a SCN in an effective manner, in the absence of the underlying documents, which form the basis of the said SCN.

Further, Hon’ble High Court directs that the petitioner shall be allowed inspection of the records of the company, as available with the lead bank, i.e., SBI. Since, record of the company is also stated to be in the possession of the RP, it is directed that the petitioner shall also be allowed to inspect of the record of the company, as available with the RP. Upon inspection of the record of the company, the petitioner shall state the specific documents that are required from the record of the company, that form the basis of the SCNs.

High Court allows Ex-Director of Corporate Debtor to inspect of the record available with Resolution Professional – Shantanu Prakash Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Since suit filed without exhausting the remedy of Pre-Institution Mediation in violation of the mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable – HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Everlight Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that any commercial suit which is instituted after 20th August, 2022 will not be maintainable if the same has been filed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act of institution of Pre-Institution Mediation. The present suit having been filed on 10th April, 2023 is clearly covered by the mandate of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Patil Automation (Supra). Since the suit was filed on behalf of the appellant without exhausting the remedy of Pre-Institution Mediation in violation of the mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the same was clearly not maintainable.

Since suit filed without exhausting the remedy of Pre-Institution Mediation in violation of the mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable – HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Everlight Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top