It has become impossible for the petitioner to effect recoveries of debts, owed to it by various institutions, which, in the submission of Mr. Nayar, aggregate to over Rs. 3 crores. In view thereof, the submission of Mr. Nayar is that, as the lockdown has been presently extended till 3rd May, 2020, this matter may be re-notified thereafter and ad interim direction be issued, restraining any coercive action being taken against his client, towards the loans allegedly owed by it, which stand set out in tabular form at page 64 of the writ petition.
The object of issuing notifications/circulars dated 27.03.2020 and 17.04.2020 was to provide financial relief in repayment due to COVID-19 to the parties who have availed the term loans and working capital facilities but this relief is not extended towards factoring facilities.
The Court, in the present case, had appropriately restrained the Suit filed by the Defendant before the Eastern District of New York on the ground of being vexatious and oppressive. Further the Court rightly considered that Domain name is akin to a Trademark.
Principle of, a mutual Will coming into effect and binding also the testator who may still be alive, on the death of one of the two testators, is well enshrined in the Indian Law.
Hon’ble Court opined that irrespective of the question, as to whether the moratorium as envisaged by RBI would be applicable to the petitioner qua the instalments, any classification of the petitioner’s accounts as NPA in present situation would certainly cause a grave and irreparable loss to the Petitioner.
In the given case, the writ petitioner has requested Income Tax Department for the adjournment of 3 weeks to respond to the show cause notice on account of the lockdown declared by the Government of India across India so as to effectively deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.
PCIT Vs MLS CBRE South Asia Private Limited ((Delhi High Court) So far as the amount of Rs.4,73,39,848/- being the excess. Remuneration paid to Sh. Anshuman Magazine is concerned, we find the assessee has obtained approval of the competent authority though on 18.07.2011 i.e. much after the date on which such remuneration has been paid. In […]
Jindal ITF Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) It is seen that the entities M/s Glebe Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Danta Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. have been used as conduits in availing unsecured loans covered u/s 68 of the Act. The identity and creditworthiness of the above companies and genuineness of the transaction […]
The issue under consideration is that the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to declare its pending loan accounts as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent for grant of moratorium of three months to it in terms of circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI).
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that RBI guidelines and package are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner was already in default as on 01.03.2020 and the package is applicable only to those instalments which fall due on 01.03.2020 and also only to those borrowers who were properly servicing their account till 01.02.2020 and were not in default.
