|
Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 147 Records
-
2019 (12) TMI 1570 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH
Validity of Resolution Plan - rejection of resolution plan on the ground that the entire information has not been provided to them for complying with the terms and conditions of the resolution plan - HELD THAT:- In view of the allegations and counter allegations made against both the parties, a separate hearing is required to decide the merits of each application. In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is prudent on the part of this Bench, after going through an elaborate discussion during the course of the hearing, that the possession be handed over to the CoC, who in turn will handover the same to the erstwhile RP.
The successful Resolution Applicant shall hand over the possession to the CoC, after an independent agency or a person takes the inventory and examine the status and the working condition of the machines and then the CoC, in turn shall handover the same to erstwhile RP. The entire process of taking inventory and handing over the possession shall be video graphed and shall be taken in the presence of both the parties - the restoration of the CIRP and the erstwhile RP shall continue as RP henceforth. All the privileges, rights available to the RP under the CIRP under Section 14 mutatis mutandis shall be applicable until the proper decision is taken in this regard.
List all the MAs for further consideration on 3.2.2020.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking direction to Respondent No.3 to remove the seal & release the said property of the Petitioner No.2 including the Godown - seeking to refrain from illegally obstructing the activities of the said factory without any justified cause and/or reason - HELD THAT:- Shri Sureshkumar learned Counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that petitioner No.2 owes provident fund dues to the tune of ₹ 23 crores approximately. He submits that respondent No.3 proposes to either file Review Petition before NCLT or challenge the order dated 11/11/2019 before the Appellate Tribunal. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to take appropriate action. As on today they have to comply with the order of NCLT. As far as provident fund dues are concerned and in as much as said order is passed by NCLT, dues are arrived at on the basis of respondent No.3’s representation.
Respondent No.3 is directed to remove the seal by tomorrow affixed on the property of the petitioner No.1 taken over by petitioner No.2 - Petitioner No.1 shall deposit with respondent No.2 an amount of ₹ 40,77,899/- within a week from today - Balance amount of ₹ 4 Crores as per NCLT order dated 11/11/2019 shall be deposited by the petitioner with respondent No.3 on or before 10/02/2020.
Petition allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1558 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
Resolution professional seeking for exclusion of 462 days from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process period - HELD THAT:- In the facts and in order to avoid liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and also to explore the possibility of resolution the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; further time of 150 days is extended from 16.11.2019 for completion of Insolvency Resolution Process as an exceptional case.
The Resolution Professional and the members of Committee of Creditors are directed to expedite the possibility of achieving resolution of the stressed assets of the corporate debtor within the extended period.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1553 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH,
Termination of contract - Corporate Debtor not served with the notice - Seeking to hand over the possession of the property to the owners of the premises and furnishes a compliance report of the same - liability of the corporate debtor is with regard to post CIRP and or from CIRP period? - whether the termination of contract dated 01.12.2016 is as per law or not? - HELD THAT:- The counsel representing the respondent submits that there is arbitration clause, and even before the initiation of the CIRP period they were not happy with the services provided by the corporate debtor and the same was conveyed to the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor was aware about consequences about the termination of the contract.
Further whether the termination is good or bad in law, is a matter of inquiry, which requires examination of the fact and circumstances. In this scenario, the termination of the contract even without serving a notice to the corporate debtor is not correct.
The termination notice issued by the respondent is stayed - Until then the respondent shall adhere to the terms of contract without fail - application disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1551 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors or not - nature of debt - Financial Debt or Operational Debt - debt due and payable and a default had occurred or not - maintainability of proceedings against a stuck off company - notice of recall / demand was given, but no reply was given by the Corporate Debtor - meeting out of obligations of proposal of name of IRP - HELD THAT:- The Financial Creditor is allowed to propose the name of a qualified personnel to act as such. This plea of the Corporate Debtor stands rejected.
Different dates mentioned at various places - HELD THAT:- These are of technical nature and do not impact the maintainability of the petition filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.
Non submission of Board Resolution under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- This plea is also devoid of merit in view of the provisions of Sections 238 of the IBC, 2013 and there being no such requirement under the provisions of IBC, 2016.
Nature of debt - whether it is a financial debt or operational debt? - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor is trying to read only the words “Advances”, hence, there are no substance in her contention that it was a case of advance and not of loan especially when she has not brought any material on record to support her contention that it was a case of advance for purchase of goods. Similarly at other places the word loan conjunction with advance has been used. We are further of the view that absence of PDC or any written agreement does not alter the character of the transaction and other facts and material can establish the true nature of transaction.
Maintainability of proceedings against a stuck off company - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble NCLAT has held that proceedings against struck off company under Section 7 IBC, 2016 were valid - CIRP can be initiated against s struck off company.
The Financial Creditor in the supplementary affidavit has proposed the name of the IRP who has given his consent and it has been claimed that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him, his name is approved - the IRP / RP to file an application under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and serve the copy of the same to Registrar of Companies, West Bengal so that name of the struck off company can formally be restored by an appropriate order of the Tribunal.
This Petition is otherwise complete and defect free - petition admitted.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1547 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors or not - Financial Debt or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of definition of expression 'Financial Creditor' would show that it refers to a person to whom a Financial debt is owed and includes even a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred to. In order to understand the expression 'Financial Creditor', the requirements of expression 'financial debt' have to be satisfied which is defined in Section 5(8) of the IBC. The opening words of the definition clause would indicate that a financial debt is a debt along with interest which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and it may include any of the events enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (i). Therefore the first essential requirement of financial debt has to be met viz. that the debt is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and which may include the events enumerated in various sub-clauses.
A Financial Creditor is a person who has right to a financial debt. The key feature of financial transaction as postulated by section 5(8) is its consideration for time value of money. In other words, the legislature has included such financial transactions in the definition of 'Financial debt' which are usually for a sum of money received today to be paid for over a period of time in a single or series of payments in future - It is essentially a contract for sale of specified goods. It is true that some time financial transactions seemingly restructured as sale and repurchase. Any repurchase and reverse repo transaction are sometimes used as devices for raising money. In a transaction of this nature an entity may require liquidity against an asset and the financer in return sell it back by way of a forward contract.
The respondent has made categorical assertion which goes unrebutted establishing that no element of time value for money is attracted and it is a simple friendly loan. There is no document on record to prove that element of interest - such a transaction would not acquire the status of a 'financial debt' as the transaction does not have consideration for the time value of money, which is a substantive ingredient to be satisfied for fulfilling requirements of the expression 'Financial Debt'.
In the instant case no such financial contract has also been produced in compliance with the provisions of the Code or of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 either in the petition or additional affidavits - the petitioner does not answer the description of Section 7 read with Section 5(7) & 5(8) of IBC.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1541 - NATIONAL CONTANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Permission for withdrawal of application - HELD THAT:- Since the Applicant counsel submitted that the said application has already been withdrawn, this application is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1538 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and more particularly Section 3(8), Section 3(23) and Section 238 and also Sections 7, 8 & 9 - Government companies - HELD THAT: We would not wish to express any opinion on the maintainability of all the proceedings before the NCLT. We do not think that once the petition was pending in this Court, can we prevent M/s.Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. to proceed with it only because some orders have been passed by the NCLT in the company petition. These orders also have not gained finality on account of the reference to a third member. Further, on the core issue about the applicability of the Code to M/s.Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., the members of the National Company Law Tribunal are divided in their opinion. There is now a reference made to the third member. We do not think that the National Company Law Tribunal should precipitate the matter when a constitutional challenge is pending before this Court. None can dispute that it is only this Court which can deal with the challenge raised to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the IBC.
We do not think that the NCLT would be well advised in proceeding with the matter. We think that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief and balance of convenience is also in its favour.
Issue notice to the learned Attorney General for India on the point as to whether the provisions of IBC, as alleged, are ultra vires Article 14 and other relevant Articles of the Constitution of India - Notice be also issued to other respondents, returnable on 22.1.2020.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1536 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOCHI BENCH
Seeking direction of this Tribunal to declare the CIRP proceedings in the matter - improper/defective filing of Form FA by the IRP - HELD THAT:- The recent Order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in HARPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA VERSUS EATIGO INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 1663 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] clearly establishes that this Tribunal cannot ignore the claims of the Financial Creditor M/s. State Bank of India, which is amounting to ₹ 15,60,65,148.34 plus the 0.44 crore towards Bank Guarantee in the instant case while considering the withdrawal of the Form FA filed by the Interim Resolution Professional.
The CIR process initiated is not required to be interfered - the Interim Resolution Professional is allowed to continue with the CIR process as mandated by the IBC, 2016.
List on 6.12.2019 for the statement of the IRP.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1534 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational creditors - earlier Appellant submitted that the Appellant intends to settle the matter with the Operational Creditors and the Committee of Creditors have not been constituted - HELD THAT:- Today, it is informed that the parties have settled the matter and the application for withdrawal has been filed before the Interim Resolution Professional, who asked some clarification from the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kochi Bench, Kochi and the Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 2nd December, 2019 clarified the same.
The Tribunal to pass appropriate order in terms of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT] taking into consideration the other factors including the claim, if any, made by other parties.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1531 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH,
Seeking for admission of the Company Petition - section 7 of IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- This matter needs to be settled in a shortest possible time frame failing which the Corporate Debtor be put under CIRP. We find that Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal while disposing the appeal directed this Adjudicating Authority to admit the application under section 7 of IBC, 2016 but with some caveat.
This Authority has to admit Corporate Debtor in CIRP but before that Corporate Debtor must be given opportunity to settle the claim with the Bank. However, there are no record produced either by the Bank or by the Corporate Debtor indicating as to what steps they took to settle the claim - on due consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case and considering the directions of the Hon’ble NCLAT, four week’s time is granted from the date of receipt of this order to the Corporate Debtor to convene the meeting of creditors as per the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and get the approval of the scheme of arrangement.
The matter be listed for hearing on 16.01.2020. Interim order to continue till then - application disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1528 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Agreement under Clause 7 (e) clearly says that the payment for services should be made immediately failing which it carries interest at the rate of 15% p.a. will be charged until the date of settlement. The invoices issued also contains a condition that the payment should be made immediately, and it did not refer the element of interest in the bills. However, the Petitioner charged @ 18% p.a., which is also contrary to the term and conditions of the Agreement and also invoices in question. It is also relevant to point out here that, there are 36 invoices starting from 22.02.2018 to 12.11.2018 for total 36 invoices amounting to ₹ 52,94,136.38/- which includes principal amount of ₹ 39,52,469/- and interest of ₹ 13,41,667.38/-. Therefore, the Petitioner failed to point out that whether the Agreement in question, which is valid for period of 2 years was further extended or not.
The Petitioner without resorting correlates the claims and Statutory Demand notice in question. The Statutory notice cannot give cause of action unless it's supported by debt, which is legally payable by the other party. Therefore, the Petitioner failed to make out any case with regard to the alleged outstanding amount, which is under dispute, and it is based on invalid Agreement. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot go roving enquiry with regard to the alleged claim, under the provisions of the Code, which is summary in nature.
The claim made in the instant Petition is not only contrary to the terms of Agreement but also in serious dispute. The Petitioner failed to respond to various emails sent by the Respondents and to correlate the bills.
It is not in dispute that the Agreement in question has already expired during 2017 itself, and there is a refundable security deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- which is stated to have forfeited in lieu of outstanding amount. Even as per Agreement, rate of 15% p.a. will be charged until the date of settlement. However, the Petitioner has claimed 18% p.a. - The Adjudicating Authority should be satisfied before initiating CIRP that all extant provisions of Code in the light of object of Code stand fulfilled. As stated supra, initial debt it is based on lapsed Agreement and the claim also in serious dispute. Therefore, the instant Company Petition is filed in order to recover the alleged disputed outstanding amount, instead of seeking to initiate CIRP on justified reasons.
It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount but it can be invoked to initiate CIRP for justified reasons as per the Code. Un-disputed claim is sine qua non for initiating CIRP - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT], has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum.
The instant Company Petition is filed other than the object of the Code with intention to recovery of the alleged outstanding amount - the Petitioner has failed to make out any case so as to initiate CIRP as prayed for and thus, it is liable to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1525 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - applicant/respondent, seeking another opportunity to the to put forth its stand on admission of the application moved under Section 7 of the Code effectively - Financial Creditors - it was averred that the application was incomplete and as the OTS process was on, thus, default could not have been alleged and there is need to espouse the plea so raised and bring it home by putting forth the oral submissions - HELD THAT:- The right to hearing was given and availed by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018. Therefore, reopening of the proceedings is not necessary.
The terms of the sanction letter dated 27.12.2018 were not complied with by the applicant/respondent in CP(IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 and therefore, the sanction letter dated 27.12.2018 granting OTS was automatically cancelled. The novation of contract, if any, does not therefore arise in the present case where the OTS proposal is not complied with and automatically cancelled.
The prayer for granting another opportunity to the applicant/respondent to put forth its stand on admission of the application moved under Section 7 of the Code effectively is denied - application dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1524 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH
Seeking order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33(2) of I & B code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the contention of the Suspended Director cannot be taken into consideration in view of the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 33(2) of IB Code, 2019. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances recorded by RP, this Adjudicating Authority did not receive any Resolution Plan under Sub-Section (6) of Section 30 and the CoC resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor with required majority. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of the I&B Code, 2016, the liquidation order is passed.
Application allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1517 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Financial Creditors or Operational Creditors - pre-existing dispute or not - Appellant submits that already a Summary Suit has been filed by Ms. Rupa Gaur therefore no application under Section 9 of I&B Code is maintainable their being a pre-existing dispute - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the ‘Committee of Creditors’ have not been constituted, which is also accepted by Mr. Atul Tandon, Interim Resolution Professional and also has reached settlement with both the creditors, as discussed above and it is a going concern, we exercise power conferred to us under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rule, 2016 and set aside the impugned order dated 4th July, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench and dispose of the application under Section 9 filed by ‘M/s Famous Innovations Digital Creative Pvt. Ltd.’ (1st Respondent) as withdrawn.
The Corporate Debtor - ‘M/s Famous Innovations Digital Creative Pvt. Ltd.’ is released from the rigour of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Appellant is directed to pay the rest of the amount to the Interim Resolution Professional within three weeks - Appeal allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1516 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Fixation of professional fee and cost of 'Resolution Professional' - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority taking into consideration the fact that main claim of the 'Operational Creditor' against the 'Corporate Debtor' was ₹ 20,50,136/- and parties settled the matter, fixed professional fee and cost of 'Resolution Professional' at ₹ 2,50,000/- and allowed a sum of Rs. one lakh to be paid in favour of the Appellant.
The Appellant is unhappy with such amount but we are not inclined to interfere with such amount - Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1495 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the debt is payable to the Operational Creditor, which is more than ₹ 1 Lakh and there is default in making payment.
Such submission cannot be accepted as Authorisation Letter, even if, issued prior to the enactment of I&B Code can be looked into for purpose of entertaining an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Code - Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1490 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Seeking approval of the ‘Resolution Plan’ - Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited - Categorized as ‘Unsecured Financial Creditor’ - correct or not - Section 30(6) r/w Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The question as to whether the ‘Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited’ is a ‘Secured Creditor’ or ‘Unsecured Creditor’ is a question of fact normally determined by the ‘Resolution Professional’ or the ‘Committee of Creditors’ or in appropriate cases it has also been discussed by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ - The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) or this Appellate Tribunal (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) has no jurisdiction to decide the same in an appeal preferred under Section 61(3) of the ‘I&B Code’.
As the case of the Appellant- ‘Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited’ was not covered by any of the grounds mentioned in Section 61(3) and this Appellate Tribunal cannot decide the question of fact relating to whether it is a ‘Secured Creditor’ or ‘Unsecured Creditor’, the impugned order need not be interfered with.
Amount of interest to be included as on Insolvency Commencement Date, is reduced without any explanation - HELD THAT:- The ‘Committee of Creditors’ has made the distribution in terms of Section 30(4), this Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to question the distribution so made - Admittedly, the Appellant- ‘Virag Enterprise’ has been provided the amount more than the liquidation value, therefore, it cannot allege that the plan is violative of Section 30(2)(b) of the ‘I&B Code’. If the Appellant does not accept the amount within the time frame, as proposed, in such case, it will not be entitled to receive any amount as the Appellant is not a ‘Secured Creditor’, it may not receive 10% - This Appellate Tribunal cannot sit in an appeal over such decision of the ‘Committee of Creditors’ which approved the plan with more than 77.79% of the voting shares looking into the viability, feasibility and other factors prescribed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India - Appeal dismissed.
Demand towards Value Added Tax/ Central Sales Tax due from the ‘Corporate Debtor’ by Demand Notice in Form 305 under the ‘Gujarat Value Added Tax, 2003, and Demand Notice in Form 8(B) under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- In view of Statement of Objects and Reasons of the ‘I&B Code’ read with Section 53 of the ‘I&B Code’, the Government cannot claim first charge over the property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. Section 48 cannot prevail over Section 53. Therefore, the Appellant- ‘State Tax Officer- (1)’ do not come within the meaning of ‘Secured Creditor’ as defined under Section 3(30) read with Section 3(31) of the ‘I&B Code’ - Further, as ‘Sales Tax Department’ filed its claim at belated stage after the plan had been approved by the ‘Committee of Creditors’, the ‘Resolution Professional’ had no jurisdiction to entertain the same and rightly not entertained - There are no merit in this appeal preferred by ‘State Tax Officer (1)’. It is accordingly dismissed.
Payment of provident fund amount - HELD THAT:- As no provisions of the ‘Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952’ is in conflict with any of the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ and, on the other hand, in terms of Section 36 (4) (iii), the ‘provident fund’ and the ‘gratuity fund’ are not the assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, there being specific provisions, the application of Section 238 of the ‘I&B Code’ does not arise - the ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’- 2nd Respondent (‘Kushal Limited’) is directed to release full provident fund and interest thereof in terms of the provisions of the ‘Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952’ immediately, as it does not include as an asset of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. The impugned order dated 27th February, 2019 approving the ‘Resolution Plan’ stands modified - appeal preferred by ‘Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’ is allowed.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1488 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - Arbitral Award - Non-performing asset - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- From the record it is found that initially pursuant to an agreement dated 26th September, 2006 one Arbitral Award was passed by the Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator on 27th January, 2014. Subsequently, another award was passed by the Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator on 31st March, 2017. Therein apart from the amount of ₹ 7,00,88,809.56/- the Arbitral Tribunal awarded interest @ 18% from the date of award till date of payment by the Respondent or realization thereof. Therefore, if the Appellant intends to rely on the award, it is held that there is no default and thereon application under Section 7 is not maintainable.
The Appellant wants execution of award - If it is treated as application under Section 7 for execution of award, in said case it is to be held that the application was filed with malicious intent not for purpose of resolution of insolvency or liquidation. However, no finding is given in case of the Bank and it is held that the application under Section 7 was barred by limitation.
While condoning the delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal, the appeal is dismissed on merits.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1465 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Seeking permission to participate for submitting the proposal of scheme of compromise and arrangement - HELD THAT:- Similar issue fell for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal in Jindal Steel and Power Limited vs. Arun Kumar Jagatramka and Anr. [2020 (2) TMI 1130 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI]. In the said case, the question fell for consideration as to whether in the liquidation proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in terms of Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 a promoter is eligible to file application for compromise and arrangement, while he is ineligible under Section 29A of the I&B Code.
The Appellant in view of Section 29A of the I&B Code, cannot file any application for compromise and arrangement in terms of Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 to take over the Company - there is no delay in preferring the Appeal - Appeal dismissed.
........
|
