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.
Penalty was leviable on assessee for contravention of provisions of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) by imposing unfair conditions upon the buyers under Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) and for abusing dominant position.
Various acts of IL&FS like over borrowing were prejudicial to the public interest which had cascading impact on various sectors of the economy and the red signals were raised against the IL&FS by the country and even by the department of economic affairs of the country, therefore, before passing any appropriate order in public interest and to save the economy of the Country from collapse, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that it required to give appropriate hearing to the concerned parties, including those who audited ‘IL&FS’ and/ or those who have managed or were concerned with ‘IL&FS’ or its Group Companies, it could not be held to be illegal.
Pacific World Shipping PTE Ltd. Vs Dadi Impex Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT) The main grievance of the Appellant is that the Operational Creditors have been given only token 2% of their claims admitted while the Financial Creditors are given 100% of their claims. The learned Counsel for the Bank has then relied on Regulation 37 of […]
Following the principle of justice and equity, the defaulting company “Unitech” was liable to repay the amount to its deposit holders principal along with the future interest @12.5% per annum from the date of maturity of the respective FDR till receipt thereof alongwith Rs.50000/- each to assessees towards cost of litigation, costs etc
Neeraj Jain Vs Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT) we have found that demand notice delivered under Section 8(1) of the Code was not proper and was also incomplete. The Operational Creditor failed to submit any documents to prove in existence of the Operational debt and the amount in The Operational Creditor also failed to […]
Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi) Mr. Virendra Ganda, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant(s) submits that the amount in terms of the earlier order dated 21st January, 2020 has been paid. Mr. Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of ‘Committee of Creditors’ has also […]
Adjudicating Authorities cannot possess the power to direct the Central Government to conduct/order the investigation against any company. Taking a look at Section 210(3) of the Act, it is clear that the Central Government ought to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the Company by appointing an inspector and obtain his report thereof and then after scrutinizing the said report, the Government can approach the SFIO department regarding the same
Facts of the Case Reliance Jio Infocom Limited (‘Reliance Jio’) is a Public Limited Company registered under Companies Act 2013. It is an Indian Telecommunication Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance Industries, headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. It operates a national LTE network with coverage across all 22 telecom circles. Reliance Jio filed a […]
