Ms. Lakshmi Gurung

Compliance and prior action in terms of MSME Act is not prerequisite or mandatory before any petition under Section 7 of the IBC could be entertained – Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Midas Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority holds that Compliance and prior action in terms of MSME Act is not prerequisite or mandatory before any petition under Section 7 of the Code could be entertained. IBC aims at resolution of the Corporate Debtor and for attaining the same various provisions and regulations are enshrined in the Code. Under Section 7 Petition, the Tribunal has to merely see whether there is a debt and default in the matter before it.

Compliance and prior action in terms of MSME Act is not prerequisite or mandatory before any petition under Section 7 of the IBC could be entertained – Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Midas Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Section 66 and 68 of the Companies Act, 2013 are separate and independent and the conditions prescribed under section 68 of the Act shall not be applicable in case of capital reduction under section 66 of the Act – Ferrero India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that a company is free to opt for reduction under section 66 of the Act even if conditions prescribed under section 68 of the Act are not met. However, the Company has to ensure all the compliances which are required for capital reduction as laid down under section 66 of the Act including but not limited to securing the interest of its creditors.

Section 66 and 68 of the Companies Act, 2013 are separate and independent and the conditions prescribed under section 68 of the Act shall not be applicable in case of capital reduction under section 66 of the Act – Ferrero India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

NCLT, having derived its powers under the IBC, has no jurisdiction per se to decide on an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA and to direct the ED to release attachment unless Section 32A of the Code is triggered – DSK Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:
(i) This Tribunal, having derived its powers under the I&B Code, has no jurisdiction per se to decide on an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA and to direct the ED to release attachment unless Section 32A of the Code is triggered.
(ii) Unless the pre-requisites under section 32A of the Code is fulfilled, there is no impediment to the ED or the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA to go ahead with the proceedings under PMLA.
(iii) Judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mr. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. Adjudicating Authority under PMLA & Anr. (2024) ibclaw.in 154 HC is distinguishable since the observations made therein pertain to a circumstance where resolution plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority.

NCLT, having derived its powers under the IBC, has no jurisdiction per se to decide on an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA and to direct the ED to release attachment unless Section 32A of the Code is triggered – DSK Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

It is a settled law that a company having substantial assets and liabilities can be restored on the ground of just as provided under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 – Deesha Leasecon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Mumbai – NCLT Mumbai Bench

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

It is a settled law that a company having substantial assets and liabilities can be restored on the ground of just as provided under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 – Deesha Leasecon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Mumbai – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top