|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 835 Records
-
2020 (7) TMI 776 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Prayer to appoint new Interim Resolution Professional - no consensus regarding appointment of IRP - secured Financial Creditors has proposed the name of Mr. Sanjay Gupta as the new IRP of the Corporate Debtor to which the Respondent i.e. IRP as well as some of the Financial Creditors did not agree - HELD THAT:- When there is a conflict and no consensus is reached by the majority of voting share to appoint the IRP/RP so proposed by the Applicant, it is expedient to appoint an independent IRP/RP to break any kind of stalemate between the Financial Creditors. Moreover, the very object of IB Code is to complete the CIRP in the time bound manner and if the dispute with regard to the IRP will continue, in that event, the very object of the IB Code will get frustrated. The IB Code prescribes timelines for various activities of the CIRP. It is mandatory to complete a CIRP within 180 days, extendable by a one-time extension of up to 90 days.
Though as per Section 7 of the IB Code, the Financial Creditor has the prerogative to propose the name of the IRP/RP and thereafter, they may change it by filing an application under Section 22 of the IB Code - However, to resolve this issue and to end the stalemate between the secured and unsecured Financial Creditors, this Bench in exercise of power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules 2016, do hereby appoint Mr. Kiran Shah as the new IRP/RP and direct him to convene the CoC meeting and complete the CIRP as early as possible.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 775 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Appointment of the RP - CIRP period of 180 days expired on 4" March 2020 and, thereafter, the same was extended for further 90 days, the said period has already been expired - HELD THAT:- If the matter will be sent for convening the meeting of Committee of Creditors, then there is every likelihood of stalemate between secured financial creditor and unsecured financial creditor as reflected from various IAs filed in recent past. In that event, the very object of the IBC will get frustrated and the CIRP cannot be concluded within the stipulated time. In view to save the time, it is expedient to pass appropriate order in the application, for the interest of justice, instead of lingering further for further argument.
-
2020 (7) TMI 774 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Seeking extension of time for an additional period of 90 days for the payment of OTS amount - petitioner could pay only 20% of the OTS amount and balance 80% of the amount - prevailing Covid-19 lockdown situation - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is to be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court has extended the limitations under several statutes, where there is no provision for condonation of delay also, till further orders or till the lockdown is lifted. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court also extended interim orders taking into consideration of the prevailing Covid-19.
The situation is extraordinary affecting the entire humanity and judicial notice has already been taken of the same. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the situation due to Covid-19 prevailing in the country - In view of extraordinary circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted time for payment entire due under OTS till the end of August, 2020.
The petitioner is permitted to pay 25% of the outstanding amount by the end of this month i.e., July, 2020 and balance 75% of the amount, by the end of August, 2020. Failing which, it is open for the respondent Bank to take appropriate action, in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 773 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - decision taken by the liquidator is appealable or not - Section 42 of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Liquidator had taken a decision. The decision taken by the liquidator is appealable under Section 42 of the Code. The petitioners, in order to file appeal under Section 42 of the Code, filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It has been submitted that the said delay condonation petition had been already allowed by the Tribunal. Now, the petitioners have to file appeal as provided under Section 42 of the Code.
Since there is provision for appeal and the petitioners had already decided to resort to the said provision by filing application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, it is not just and proper for this Court to pass any order exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when so many appeals in this connection are pending consideration by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is directed to dispose of all the appeals, including the appeals to be filed by the petitioners in this case, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 772 - ITAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Parties before us mutually agreed that this revenue appeal is to be dismissed as not maintainable in view of the recent Circular issued by the CBDT dated 08/08/2019 wherein the revenue has been directed to withdraw the appeal preferred by it before the Tribunal if the tax effect on the disputed issues is less than or equal to ₹ 50,00,000/-. It is well settled that this Circular is binding on the revenue authorities.
Respectfully following the said Circular, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2020 (7) TMI 771 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 - petitioner claimed to have paid excess tax - petitioner has placed the facts before the committee for consideration or not - case of petitioner is that petitioner has paid tax as per Annexure-F and the same has not been considered - HELD THAT:- The resultant position is, the Revenue has demanded a tax of ₹ 36.54 lakhs as per Annexure-A. In view of the disputed claims with regard to taking into account the tax claimed to have been paid by the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, it would be just and appropriate to direct the Committee to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders afresh.
Matter is remitted as per Annexures – D and F to the Committee and the designated Committee shall issue notice, give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, consider the material on record and pass fresh orders in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 770 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of petition - HELD THAT:- In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and recording the memo of withdrawal, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (7) TMI 769 - SC ORDER
Interpretation of Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice restricted to the question of interpretation of Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order of the High Court rejecting bail is not liable to be interfered with.
SLP dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 768 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application under Section 7 of the I&B Code - settlement process at pre-admission stage - HELD THAT:- It is manifestly clear that the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code came to be disposed of at the pre-admission stage and no order of admission or rejection of application was passed by the Adjudicating Authority keeping in view the nature of claims which admittedly were relatable to a Housing Project. The Adjudicating Authority appears to have been influenced by the fact that claims of the maximum number of stakeholders have been settled which included some claims settled at pre-admission stage before the Adjudicating Authority. In so far as the remaining claims were concerned, the Adjudicating Authority allowed a definite time frame viz. 3 months giving liberty to the claimant(s) whose claims would remain unsettled after expiry of the given time frame, to come back and re-agitate the matter.
It cannot be said that the impugned order is of such a nature which is prejudicial to the rights and interests of any of the stakeholders. The claimant(s) who may be dissatisfied or whose claims remain unsettled during the given time frame can approach the Adjudicating Authority who has not shut its doors. Assailing of the impugned order in appeal would not be the appropriate course - bearing in mind that the settlement process set in motion at the pre-admission stage is supported by the Consent Terms filed by some of the stakeholders, though it may not be all encompassing, this appeal would not lie.
Appeal is not maintainable - appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT
Application for extension of time - HELD THAT:- Time is extended for a period of two months subject to depositing 50% amount within one month and remaining 50% within the next 30 days - No further extension shall be granted.
Application for extension of time stands disposed accordingly.
-
2020 (7) TMI 766 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL BENCH CHENNAI
Approval of Resolution Plan - Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39 (4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- This Authority giving credence to the commercial decision of the COC in approving the Resolution Plan has perused the Resolution Plan in light of the same. Further, it is seen that the Resolution Applicant has sought for Relief and Concessions in the Resolution Plan. The Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor as per Form H filed by the Resolution Professional is arrived at ₹ 155 Crores and the Resolution Plan provides for an amount of ₹ 368.50 Crores payable to all the stakeholders (excluding ₹ 0.50 Crores of CIRP costs), which is much more than the Liquidation value.
Since prima facie, there are no inconsistency in relation to the Resolution plan vis-a-vis the provisions of section 30(2) of IBC, 2016, the Resolution Plan is hereby approved and it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders involved so that revival of the Debtor Company shall come into force with immediate effect and the "Moratorium" imposed under section 14 of IBC, 2016 at the time of initiation of CIRP shall not have any effect henceforth. The Resolution Professional shall submit the records collected during the commencement of the Proceedings to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for their record and also return thereafter to the Resolution Applicant or New Promoters.
Application filed by the Resolution Professional for the approval of the Resolution Plan stands allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 765 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rectification of mistake done beyond prescribed time limit - applicability of time limitation - HELD THAT:- A complete procedure and eligibility has been prescribed for availing the benefit of the scheme. However, as per section 128 within 30 days of issuance of statement, designated committee, suo motu, is empowered to correct an arithmetical and clerical error, which is apparent on the face of record. No doubt in the instant case while accepting the declarations submitted by the petitioner issued statements vide exhibits P8, P9 and P10 dated February 28, 2020. The rectification orders exhibits P12 to P14 dated June 2, 2020 are beyond 30 days. Though the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the scheme as per originally issued SVLDRS-3 but, this court cannot remain oblivious that many assessees availed the benefits of scheme and owing to such fact, the designated committee could not notice the manual returns exhibits P1 to P3 were ever filed and by accepting declarations, SVLDRS-3 were issued. The petitioner had also attempted to pay tax as reflected in exhibit P8. But on noticing non-filing of the return by taking the aid of the provisions 128 or general law of the rectification, rectified SVLDRS-3 was issued.
Even section 129 of the Scheme envisages that every discharge certificate issued under 126 with respect to the amount payable shall be conclusive but sub-section (2)(c) of section 129 opens with a non obstante clause that in a case of a voluntary disclosure where any material particular furnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 764 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest - advance was paid out of interest-free funds comprising Reserves & Surplus of the company - why proportionate interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act should not be disallowed as there seems to be no business connection between the advance paid and the business of assessee? - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts are that the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available with it as it is a listed company and has huge funds available with it. Even during the year, assessee has earned profit - Therefore, we are not in a position to concur with the conclusions drawn either by the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer on this issue. The tax authorities cannot be allowed to sit on the chair of a businessman and decide what is right or wrong for the business.
In this case, we note that the assessee’s own funds are far more than the advance paid for booking of bungalow as is clear from the facts given hereinabove. Therefore both the authorities below have grossly erred while deciding the issue.
The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT] wherein has confirmed the order of PHALTON SUGAR WORKS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX [1993 (8) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] upholding the order of Tribunal wherein it has been held that where interest-free funds available with assessee were sufficient to meet the investments, it could be presumed that the investment was made from interest-free funds available with the assessee. We, therefore, respectfully following the same, set-aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance - Appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 763 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Approval of Scheme of Merger - sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- All necessary instructions regarding holding and convening of meeting duly complied with - necessary instructions were given regarding issuance and service of various notices - all fomalities to be complied with.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 762 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - Section 5(8)(f) explanation read with Section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr. Manik Dogra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. No further notice need be issued to him. He may file reply-affidavit within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereof.
List the appeal ‘for admission (after notice)’ on 4th September, 2020.
-
2020 (7) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT
Reconsideration of Resolution Plan - application of mind by Adjudicating Authority before approving or rejecting a Resolution Plan - It was held by NCLAT that Impugned Order regarding approval of Resolution Plan need not be interfered - HELD THAT:- There are no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment - appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 760 - SC ORDER
Demand of Outstanding dues including taxes - respondent-Company has gone in liquidation - HELD THAT:- As Official Liquidator has filed a report that the Respondent-Company (Moser Bear India Ltd.) is not financially viable and is under liquidation in proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal. Even if the Appellant-Revenue were to succeed, the Official Liquidator is not in a position to pay the tax amount involved in these appeals.
Indisputedly, the respondent-Company has gone in liquidation. The Company in liquidation is not in a position to pay its outstanding dues including taxes. Moreover, the tax effect in the concerned appeals is just over ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Only).
Taking overall view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of these appeals, leaving the question of law open, to be decided in appropriate case. Ordered accordingly.
-
2020 (7) TMI 759 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Seeking disclosure of details of the income tax returns of the husband of appellant - Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 - whether the appellant claiming to be the legally wedded wife of Mr. G H Sharanappa is entitled to seek details of his income tax returns? - HELD THAT:- The decision dated 01-07-2009 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Prakash v. UOI & others [2009 (7) TMI 1364 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it has been clarified that in a private dispute between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. In the matter at hand, the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose - Since filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with the Income Tax Department is not a public activity and rather it is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes, this information cannot be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest.
From the words circumscribed under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, it is vividly clear that any person other than the citizen making a request for information can be termed as ‘third party’. Therefore, Mr. G H Sharanappa being a person other than the RTI applicant surely comes within the definition of ‘third party’. Moreover, the CPIO has also not intended to disclose the information treating it as confidential and has rather pleaded that there is no public interest in the matter. This Commission also does not find any public interest which outweighs the harm caused in its disclosure.
This Commission after considering the factual matrix of the case is of the opinion that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek the details of the Income Tax Returns filed by the third party, Mr. G H Sharanappa which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 - considering the aspect of marital discord between the husband and wife vis-à-vis her right of maintenance, this Commission is of the opinion that the respondent should consider providing only the limited information of the last six years i.e. the numerical figure(s) of the ‘gross income’ of her husband, Mr. G H Sharanappa, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 758 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Seeking direction to Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench to decide the fee of Resolution Professional and cost of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as incurred by the Resolution Professional and to be borne and paid by the ‘Bank of India Ltd.’ (Financial Creditor) - HELD THAT:- On a query, learned counsel for the Appellant replied that the Resolution Professional has worked for about three months. Since the expenses have been allowed in full and the consolidated amount of ₹ 5 Lakh + GST has been allowed as fee of the Resolution Professional for entire period, we find the same is not unreasonable. Fixation of fee is not a business decision depending upon the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 757 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Invocation/encashment of Bank Guarantee - within the scope of Moratorium or not - HELD THAT:- The recital of guarantee clearly provides that the guarantee in question is a bank guarantee and not a performance guarantee as contended by the counsel for the applicant. In the case on hand the bank guarantee is offered to the seller, (the Applicant) on account of purchasing goods by the borrower viz., CD on credit and the bank viz., the non- Applicant No. 2 hand given a bank guarantee to the effect that it will pay certain unsettled sum on behalf of the buyer (CD) to the seller i.e. the Applicant. Once this position becomes clear then the bank guarantee does not fall within the purview of the proviso to Section 3(31) of IBC 2016, because a bank guarantee cannot be described as performance bank guarantee. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the guarantee is a performance bank guarantee stands rejected.
Whether the bank guarantee in question can be invoked during the moratorium declared under Section 14(1) of IBC 2016? - HELD THAT:- As per section 14(1)(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is prohibited. It is well settled position that the bank guarantee falls within the purview of the definition of "Security interest" as defined under Section 3(31) of the IBC, which is already quoted. Therefore, during the moratorium the bank guarantee cannot be invoked as the same is prohibited under Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC.
Application dismissed.
........
|
