Held that the Adjudicating Authority has not erred in passing the Impugned Order rejecting the revised resolution plan due to lapse of stipulated time period of more than 330 days in CIRP.
Held that an unpardonable lackadaisical approach/ attitude of the `Party’ in pursuing a matter before the `Competent Authority’ / `Tribunal’ is not to be accepted. Delay not condoned in such case even if the appellant being statutory organization.
Tejas Khandhar Vs Bank of Baroda (NCLAT Delhi) Section 18 of the Limitation Act gets attracted the moment acknowledgment in writing signed by the party against whom such right to initiate resolution process under Section 7 IBC ensures. Section 18 of the Limitation Act would come into play every time when the principal borrower and/or […]
Held that a Financial Debt is a debt alongwith interest which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. Earnest money doesn’t satisfy the essential condition of financial debt and accordingly categorized as other creditor.
IBC 2016: Resolution Professional, in Law can exercise control over Bank Accounts operated by ‘Corporate Debtor’ only and not otherwise.
Held that conjoint reading of section 33 of IBC with section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would show that the authority which has power to appoint a person, equally has the power to suspend or dismiss that person.
Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited Vs Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited (NCLAT Delhi) We have noticed above that Section 3(33) of the Code deals with ‘transaction’. Agreement dated 15.04.2017 is fully covered within the meaning of word ‘transaction’ as defined in Section 3(33). We may also need to look into the meaning of expression […]
The Appellant/Amazon because of the violations committed by it, had intentionally not made known the `real ambit and purpose’ of the `Combination’. Penalty under Section 44 and 45 of the Act, 2002 levied.
Printland Digital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nirmal Trading Company (NCLAT) NCLAT held that There is a difference between recalling of an order and review on merits of the issue decided by the Adjudicating Authority. No doubt that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order after deciding a substantial issue but it has […]
Kishore K. Lonkar Vs Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) It is not the case of the Appellant that the amounts claimed are due towards any emoluments/salary for the services rendered by him to the ‘Corporate Debtor’, while he was in service. Though ‘service benefits’ like ‘LTC’ accrue, on account of the service rendered during the […]
