The proceedings of the sixth meeting of the Board of Directors of ‘Tata Sons Limited’ held on Monday, 24th October, 2016 so far as it relates to removal and other actions taken against Mr. Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (11th Respondent) is declared illegal and is set aside.
Regional Director Vs Real Image LLP (NCLAT) Our Today’s article is about the Basic question that if an Indian LLP wants to process for the Amalgamation into a Indian Company, whether it required to obtain the registration under section 366 In the case of Regional Director, Southern Region, & Ors. V. Real Images LLP. If […]
The order of ‘admission’ is challenged on the ground that the matter having been heard by two Hon’ble Members and the final order could not have been passed by Hon’ble Member (Judicial).
Promoter, if ineligible under Section 29A cannot make an application for Compromise and Arrangement for taking back the immovable and movable property or actionable claims of the ‘Corporate Debtor’.
The Director, Deputy Director and other officers of ‘Directorate of Enforcement’ are prohibited from attachment of any property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (Bhushan Power and Steel Limited) without prior approval of this Appellate Tribunal. The property already attached by them be released in favour of the ‘Resolution Professional’ immediately.
M/s. Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Earth Infrastructure Ltd. (NCALT) In terms of third proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 12, as we find that the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is pending and has not been completed within the period referred to in the second proviso, we hold that […]
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs Sachet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) In these appeals as common order dated 7th March, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, New Delhi, is under challenge and common question of law is involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by […]
Mr. Lagadapati Ramesh Vs Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari (NCLAT Delhi) Section 212 does not empower the National Company Law Tribunal or the Adjudicating Authority to refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the ‘Serious Fraud Investigation Office’ even if it notices the affairs of the Company of defrauding the creditors and others. However, […]
Recently the Delhi bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has passed an order for liquidation in the case of Amtek Auto Limited. The two-judge Bench headed by Justice S J Mukhopadhya, stated in its order ‘As we have noted that more than 270 days have been completed much earlier and no case is made to exclude any period, we hold that adjudicating authority has no other option but to pass order of liquidation.’
Explore NCLAT’s decision on limitation in Sanghvi Movers Ltd. vs. Tech Sharp case. Key insights on approaching forums for timely relief and implications for IBC cases.
