In present facts of the case, it was observed that deposit of 10% of the penalty shall have no effect on the order of ‘debarment’ passed against the Appellant(s) under Section 132(4)(c). Order of ‘debarment’ shall continue to operate unless an order is passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
NCLAT Delhi held that struck off of name from the list of Active Companies by ROC unsustainable as Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets, and hence it cannot be said that the Appellant Company is not carrying on any business or operations.
Read the full text of the NCLAT Chennai order in the case of K. Narayanasamy vs J. Karthiga. The NCLAT set aside the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that dismissed an application filed by the suspended director. The NCLAT remanded the matter back to the NCLT for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the suspended director an opportunity to be heard.
NCLAT Chennai held that if there is any breach of the Terms of Settlement, it cannot be construed as an issue which would fall within the ambit of the definition of Oppression and Mismanagement as defined under the Companies Act, 1956.
NCLAT Chennai held that subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan of the CoC and before the approval by the Adjudicating Authority, no modifications / alterations can be called for as IBC is a time bound process.
In this case the NCLT’s order was set aside by the NCLAT to implead a former Executive Director of the Punjab National Bank in a matter related to Rs 14000 crore scam involving diamond merchant Nirav Modi Group and Gitanjali Group of Companies.
NCLAT Chennai rejected grant of condonation of delay in filing of the ‘Claim under Form-C’ as sufficient cause not shown and IBC is a time bound process.
NCLAT Chennai held that the sub-Contractor, would not have any contractual relationship with the owner and would not be entitled to prefer any `Claims’ against the owner
NCLAT Chennai held that ‘Order of Dissolution’ sustainable as the ‘Promoters’ failed to project the ‘Resolution Plan’ within the specified time limit.
Examine the recent NCLAT Delhi verdict in the UTI Employees Sai Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. case, emphasizing the significance of allowing objections in resolution plans.
