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 continue reading
Supreme Court Judgments on IBC
Recent SC Judgments
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.
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
Case Reference Case Name : Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 Of 2018 Writ Ref. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 100/2018, 115/2018, 459/2018, 598/2018, 775/2018, 822/2018, 849/2018, 1221/2018, 37/2019 & Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28623 Of 2018 Petitioners : Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Respondent(s) : Union of India & Ors. Date of Judgment : 25-Jan-19 Tribunal/Court : Supreme Court of India See summary of the case (argument and the Apex court's verdict) Full text of the of the judgment: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 99 OF 2018 Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. …..Petitioners VERSUS Union of India & Ors. …..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 100 continue reading
Case Reference Case Name : Forech India Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Appeal : Civil Appeal No. 818 Of 2018 Appellant(s) : Forech India Ltd. Respondent(s) : Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Date of Judgment : 22-Jan-19 Tribunal/Court : Supreme Court of India Full text of the judgment J U D G M E N T ROHINTON F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The present matter arises from an Operational Creditor’s appeal to continue with a winding up petition that has been filed by the said creditor way back in 2014. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows:- 2. A winding up petition, being No. 42 of 2014, was filed by the present appellant before the High Court of Delhi on 10.01.2014, against Respondent continue reading
Case Reference Case Name : Shashi Prakash Khemka (Dead) through LRs. and Another Vs. NEPC Micon (Now called NEPC India Ltd.) and Others Appeal No. : Civil Appeal Nos.1965-1966 Of 2014 Appellant(s) : Shashi Prakash Khemka (Dead) through LRs. and Another Respondent(s) : NEPC Micon (Now called NEPC India Ltd.) and Others Date of Judgment : 08-Jan-19 Tribunal/Court : Supreme Court of India Full text of the judgment O R D E R Heard Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel for the appellants. The respondents have been served, but from the inception of the special leave petition in the year 2007, none has been appearing for the respondents. The subject matter of dispute before us is the exercise of power under Section 111-A of the Companies Act, 1956 continue reading