0 comments on “Whether exclusion of a subsidiary company, joint venture or associate of other company, for purpose of eligibility for registration as valuer is reasonable & constitutional-Cushman And Wakefield India Private Limited Vs. Union Of India & Anr-Delhi High Court”

Whether exclusion of a subsidiary company, joint venture or associate of other company, for purpose of eligibility for registration as valuer is reasonable & constitutional-Cushman And Wakefield India Private Limited Vs. Union Of India & Anr-Delhi High Court

Whether a company, other than a subsidiary company, joint venture or associate of other company forms a separate class for the purpose of eligibility for registration as a valuer under the subject Rules, and as such whether the said classification is reasonable. In other words, whether exclusion of a subsidiary company, joint venture or associate of other company, for purpose of eligibility for registration as valuer is reasonable. The answer to the same has to be in the affirmative.

0 comments on “Sec. 434(1)(b) is attracted only if execution or other process is issued in respect of an order of a Tribunal in favour of a creditor of the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part- Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd-Supreme Court”

Sec. 434(1)(b) is attracted only if execution or other process is issued in respect of an order of a Tribunal in favour of a creditor of the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part- Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd-Supreme Court

It is obvious that Section 434(1)(b) is attracted only if execution or other process is issued in respect of an order of a Tribunal in favour of a creditor of the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part. This is only one of three instances in which a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. If the fact situation fits sub-clause (b) of Section 434(1), then a company may be said to be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. However, this does not mean that each one of the sub-clauses of Section 434(1) are mutually exclusive in the sense that once Section 434(1)(b) applies, Section 434(1)(a) ceases to be applicable.

0 comments on “Using Information Available at Information Utility (IU) Platform for External Confirmations-ICAI”

Using Information Available at Information Utility (IU) Platform for External Confirmations-ICAI

ICAI Announcement on Using Information Available at Information Utility (IU) Platform for External Confirmations The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of ICAI at its 193 rd meeting held on 25th January 2019 (meeting adjourned and continued on 5th February 2019) considered the…

0 comments on “Relaxation of External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) framework for Resolution Applicants”

Relaxation of External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) framework for Resolution Applicants

The RBI amended the regime on external commercial borrowings (ECBs), and allowed RAs to borrow ECBs from recognised lenders (other than the branches or overseas subsidiaries of Indian banks) for repayment of rupee term loans of a corporate debtor under…

0 comments on “Finding and Ruling in the Judgement in the matter of K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.”

Finding and Ruling in the Judgement in the matter of K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.

Finding and Ruling in the Judgement dated 5th February, 2019 in the matter of K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. [CA No. 10673 of 2018 with CA No. 10719 of 2018, CA No. 10971 of 2018 and SLP…

0 comments on “No provision has been envisaged by the legislature to empower the RP, the NCLT or NCLAT, to reverse the commercial decision of the CoC-K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.-Supreme Court”

No provision has been envisaged by the legislature to empower the RP, the NCLT or NCLAT, to reverse the commercial decision of the CoC-K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.-Supreme Court

The scope of enquiry and the grounds on which the decision of “approval” of the resolution plan by the CoC can be interfered with by the adjudicating authority (NCLT), has been set out in Section 31(1) read with Section 30(2) and by the appellate tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the I&B Code. No corresponding provision has been envisaged by the legislature to empower the resolution professional, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) or for that matter the appellate authority (NCLAT), to reverse the “commercial decision” of the CoC muchless of the dissenting financial creditors for not supporting the proposed resolution plan.

0 comments on “Director in CoC-Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors.-Supreme Court”

Director in CoC-Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors.-Supreme Court

The proviso to Section 21(2) clarifies that a director who is also a financial creditor who is a related party of the corporate debtor shall not have any right of representation, participation, or voting in a meeting of the committee of creditors. Directors, simplicitor, are not the subject matter of the proviso to Section 21(2), but only directors who are related parties of the corporate debtor