Kiran Shah Vs Enforcement Directorate (NCLAT Delhi) In so far as anyone aggrieved against any decision or order of the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ of the PMLA, then it is open to him to prefer an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA by resorting to the relevant provision(s) of the ‘Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002’. […]
Association of aggrieved Workmen Association of aggrieved Workmen of of Jet Airways (India) Limited Vs Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) Facts- The only question involved is whether the appellant is entitled for a copy of resolution plan or any part of it. Notably, the resolution plan is already approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Conclusion- Resolution plan […]
In the SICOM Limited vs. Sundaresh Bhat case, the Appellant’s U/s. 60(5) Application was accepted. Learn why Section 42’s limitation doesn’t apply.
Essjay Ericsson Private Limited Vs Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) When the limitation has extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the orders noted above, for a period covering extension of limitation neither application is required nor there is any discretion of Court or Tribunal to consider sufficiency of delay. We are […]
Kanchan Nanubhai Desai Personal Guarantor Vs Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (NCLAT, Delhi) There cannot be any dispute with the statutory scheme as contained in Section 97 that when Application is filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 95, the Adjudicating Authority shall direct the Board within seven days of the date of […]
Vinayak K Deshpande Vs Nexo Industries P Ltd (NCLAT Chennai) In view of the fact that the Settlement Agreement has been entered into between the parties and based on the said Agreement, the subject matter is issue is resolved between the parties, as informed by the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties, this ‘Tribunal’, dismisses […]
Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Registrar of Companies (NCLAT Delhi) NCLAT that the NCLT has erroneously held that the Application for reduction of share is not maintainable under Section 66 of the Act, consent affidavits from the creditors is mandatory for reduction of share capital, SPA cannot be utilized for making payment to non-promoter shareholders, […]
Since assessee had initiated the insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor only as a recovery mechanism to recover dues of ‘listing fees’ however, IB Code was not meant for recovery of dues of creditors.
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under section 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be maintained even if Company’s name has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC).
NCLAT remarked that the revision of the GST assessment order was beyond the jurisdiction of the RP and the RP was not having the adjudicatory power given by the GST Law
