Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs. Ashok Tripathi (Delhi NCLAT) (i) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can no more claim to be allottees of a Real Estate Project after issuance of Recovery Certificate dated 10th August, 2019 by ‘UP RERA’ directing recovery of Rs.73,35,686.43/- due thereunder as arrears of land revenue by the Competent Authority. On their […]
Vivek Bansal Vs Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (NCLAT Delhi) In a recent judgment (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 552 of 2020, dated 14-07-2020), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a company could exit an ongoing insolvency process even as an interim resolution professional had been appointed and a moratorium […]
State Bank of India Vs Metenere Ltd. (NCLAT) The fact that the proposed ‘Resolution Professional’ Mr. Shailesh Verma had a long association of around four decades with the ‘Financial Creditor’ serving under it and currently drawing pension coupled with the fact that the ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ is supposed to collate all the claims submitted by […]
NCLAT concluded that the apprehension of bias expressed by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ qua the appointment of Verma as proposed IRP is valid and cannot be dismissed. Further, it contended that the NCLT order was justified in seeking substitution of Verma to ensure that CIRP is conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
That the period of lockdown ordered by the Central Government and the State Governments including the period as may be extended either in whole or part of the country, where the registered office of the Corporate Debtor may be located
‘Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes’ (AMMA), Film Employees Federation of Kerala’ (FEFKA), ‘FEFKA Director’s Union’ and ‘FEFKA Production Executive’s Union’ and their office bearers were found to be liable under Section 48 for violation of anti-competitive conduct.
Recently, a three judge bench of NCLAT in V. Padmakumar vs. Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (SAFS) & Anr. considered the issue that ‘whether admission of debt in balance sheet would amount to acknowledgement of debt which would further amount to extension of period of limitation as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act)’.
: In absence of any prime facie opinion framed, that the combination of Walmart-Flipkart was likely to cause or had caused appreciable adverse effect on the competition within the relevant market in India, the sanction of of Walmart’s acquisition of Flipkart by Competition Commission of India (CCI) was justified.
Bimalkumar Manubhai Savalia Vs Bank of India (NCLAT) Conclusion: Proceedings initiated or pending in DRT, either initiated under SARFAESI or under debts and due to Banks and Financial Institutions could not be taken into account for the purposes of limitation. Therefore, the application filed by Bank before the Adjudicating Authority on 30.08.2018 was beyond the […]
In this article we will be discussing the aforesaid Question, as well as whether NCLT can intervene the commercial wisdom and decision of CoC. We will be discussing various judgments of NCLAT and Supreme Court of India which would be relevant for shedding some light on the aforesaid questions.
