Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer

At belated stage, after the sale of Corporate Debtor under Liquidation confirmed, the objections raised by a Prospective Bidder cannot be entertain especially when there is no allegation of fraud – JSK Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sundaresh Bhat, Liquidator of EMCO Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:

(i) It is settled law that sale on ‘as is where is’ basis in liquidation does not necessarily mean that the successful bidder has to bear past liabilities which get settled as per Section 53 of the Code. Even if the auction notice contained clause of ‘as is and where is basis’ or of encumbrances, no fault can be found with the liquidator for having issued such a notice.
(ii) The Liquidator was quite justified in doing so in order to be on the safer side and to avoid incurring any future liability out of the proposed sale. There is nothing wrong if the successful bidder approached the Hon’ble NCLT for various reliefs and concessions with respect to ‘clean slate’ and for transfer of assets without encumbrances and if the appropriate reliefs and concessions were granted as per the settled law.
(iii) A successful bidder of a property in liquidation proceedings under the IBC is always at liberty to seek certain reliefs and concessions on the principle of clean slate.

At belated stage, after the sale of Corporate Debtor under Liquidation confirmed, the objections raised by a Prospective Bidder cannot be entertain especially when there is no allegation of fraud – JSK Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sundaresh Bhat, Liquidator of EMCO Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

In case of the death of a joint holder, the survivor(s) shall be the only person(s) recognized by the company as having title to his interest in the shares, a Will in favour of third person would be of no consequence – Pratik Chandrakant Khandhadiya Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that a perusal of the Article 23 of Schedule I (Table F) of the Companies Act, 2013 reveals that it is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the death of a member where the member was a joint holder and the second part deals with the eventuality of death of the sole member. It further provides that in case of the death of a joint holder, the survivor or survivors shall be the only person (s) recognized by the company as having title to his interest in the shares. In case of the death of a sole member, his nominee, if any, or his legal representatives shall be recognized by the company as having title in his shares. Therefore, from the Article 23 of Schedule I (Table F) of the Companies Act, 2013, it is evident that since the Petitioner’s Mother held share jointly with him, the Petitioner would be the only person recognized by the Respondents for having a title to her interest in the shares being a survivor. Since the Petitioner’s Mother was not the sole holder of the shares, the will in favour of the sister of the Petitioner would be of no consequence.

In case of the death of a joint holder, the survivor(s) shall be the only person(s) recognized by the company as having title to his interest in the shares, a Will in favour of third person would be of no consequence – Pratik Chandrakant Khandhadiya Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

The provisions of Section 60(5) of IBC can be invoked for recovery of admitted outstanding against services rendered by the Corporate Debtor, instead of Civil Court(s) or Arbitral Proceedings – Vineet K. Chaudhary Vs. NTPC Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:

(i) NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the corporate debtor.
(ii) The process of undergoing CIRP or liquidation under the IB Code is a time bound process.
(iii) If the Liquidator is relegated to civil court(s) or arbitral proceedings even in respect of admitted dues, it would definitely defeat the objects of the Code and the objective of concluding the process in a time bound manner would never be possibly adhered to.
(iv) Judgment in Shri Ramachandra D. Choudhary v. Bansal Trading Company and Ors. (2022) ibclaw.in 653 NCLAT cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the instant case as there is no such dispute to the extent of admitted liability and for undisputed liabilities, the parties cannot be driven to unnecessary and lengthy litigation.

The provisions of Section 60(5) of IBC can be invoked for recovery of admitted outstanding against services rendered by the Corporate Debtor, instead of Civil Court(s) or Arbitral Proceedings – Vineet K. Chaudhary Vs. NTPC Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

IBC Section 95 application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-stamping and/or insufficient stamping of the deeds of Guarantee – State Bank of India Vs. Mamta Apparao – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:

(i) In the present case, the liability to pay the stamp duty on the above-referred Deeds of Guarantee is on the Respondent and not the Petitioner. Therefore, if the Respondent herself has not paid sufficient stamp duty on the above-referred Deeds of Guarantee, she cannot now resist this Petition on the ground that the aforesaid deeds have not been sufficiently stamped.
(ii) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not strictly apply to the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority while adjudicating an application u/s 95 read with Section 100 of the Code.
(iii) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr. (2017) ibclaw.in 02 SC, this Petition cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-stamping and/or insufficient stamping of the deeds of guarantee especially when the debt does not cease to be due and payable on account of such deficient stamping of documents when the default has otherwise been satisfactorily established from the records.

IBC Section 95 application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-stamping and/or insufficient stamping of the deeds of Guarantee – State Bank of India Vs. Mamta Apparao – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

At the stage of the amendment, the Court should not go into correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment – Rolta Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Streamcast Education Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench allows amendments in Section 7 of IBC holding that the admissibility of the Petition under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall be determined at the final stage of hearing. Similarly, the point as to whether the Petition is barred under Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be decided at the time of admission on the basis of material placed on record. That being so, at this stage, the Applicant cannot be precluded from pleading certain new facts. However, the veracity of such newly pleaded fact will be adjudged at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proposed amendment will not cause any prejudice to the Respondent.

At the stage of the amendment, the Court should not go into correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment – Rolta Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Streamcast Education Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Resolution Applicant has no vested right that his Resolution Plan be considered and No challenge can be preferred to the Adjudicating Authority – Dheeraj Reddy Jinna Vs. Vijay Kumar V Iyer RP of Future Retail Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

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

Resolution Applicant has no vested right that his Resolution Plan be considered and No challenge can be preferred to the Adjudicating Authority – Dheeraj Reddy Jinna Vs. Vijay Kumar V Iyer RP of Future Retail Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top