"MR. GAURAV RANA(Advocate, CS) Mr. Rana, Advocate is a member of Bar Council Association of Delhi High Court, India and an Associate member of Institute of Company Secretaries of India. He has extensive experience in commercial litigation, arbitration and regularly argues at various fora. He advises and represents key clients and has conducted high profile litigation before the Supreme Court of India, High Courts, National Company Law Tribunals (formerly Company Law Board) of various States, and other Tribunals. MR. Rana has represented and appeared in several legal proceedings which have resulted in landmark judgments and reported in reputed journals. He has often been invited as an expert in various seminars and conferences to deliver presentation and knowledge sharing on topics of his area of practice. He is also focusing on recently introduced Insolvency Law. He argued key issue of interpretation at the early stage of development of jurisprudence on the subject. "
Ashutosh Gupta & Gaurav Rana Supreme Court provided a window of two month from the order to the applicants/homebuyers to approach the NCLT after complying the first or second proviso to Sub-Section 1 to Section 7 of the IBC. The Supreme Court on Tuesday in batch matters lead by Manish Kumar Vs UOI WP(C) No. […]
In this article we will be discussing aforesaid Moot Question, and consciously examine the impact of approval of the Resolution Plan on guarantor’s subrogation right i.e. right of indemnification from principal debtor as well.
In the present case the Auditor Report categorically states it has relied on the information provided by the management of the Company and as per the management there was no default in the repayment of loans or borrowings to financial institution. However, the Company has failed to repay its dues to bank and has been declared as NPA by bank and the matter is lying with Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Ashutosh Gupta and Gaurav Rana MOOT QUESTION VI, CAN A LIQUIDATOR AND RP INITIATE CIRP AGAINST OTHER CORPORATE DEBTOR. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 (“Ordinance”) promulgated on 28th December, 2020, has not only brought, changes in respect to home buyers but also clarity in respect to powers and rights as entrusted upon the […]
Thus in cases of Section 18 of Limitation Act, liberal approach must be taken while considering the acknowledgment and no hard and fast rule can be applied to ascertain whether statement is acknowledgement or not, it solely depends on the circumstances under which it is made.
NCLAT held it is not discretionary on the Operational Creditor to issue demand notice in form 3 or 4, issuance of the said form depend on the nature of transaction, like in the cases wherein invoice forms part of the transaction then FORM 4 has to be followed in other cases FORM 3 has to be followed.
In this article we would be discussing the third moot question i.e. is it mandatory to issue notice for dispute in reply to demand notice for raising dispute under IBC
As per Operational Creditor, Flipkart took delivery first few batches of LED TVs and later on refused to take delivery on the ground of lack of warehouse space. In good gesture Operational Creditor warehoused the LED TVs for a temporary period. For said period Operational Creditor had paid excess custom duties. Flipkart had failed to collect more than 70% of the stock as ordered by them till March, 2018.
This article deals with the most mooted question(s) of the recent past i.e. whether claims towards outstanding rent is operational debt as defined under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016
