Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy 2018 2018 2018 (3) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 42 of 42 Records

• 2018 (3) TMI 231 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
  

  Respondent entitlement to invoke Bank Guarantees during moratorium period - Whether Performance Guarantee is a ‘Security Interest’ or not? - Whether supply of power to Corporate Debtor can be restated? - Held that:- The moratorium imposed is only in respect of the properties of the Corporate Debtor. The moratorium order clearly says that any Security Interest created by the Corporate Debtor cannot be enforced in respect of the property of the Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period. In the case on hand, the moratorium period was extended for further period of 90 days beyond 180 days as per order dated 1st December, 2017. The 180 days’ period had expired on 2.12.2017. Now, it is extended for another period of 90 days.

  Section 3 (31) clearly says that Performance Guarantees are not included in the Security Interest. What is covered by the order of this Authority under Section 14(l)(c) is the Security Interest. Therefore, the moratorium order passed by this Tribunal is not applicable to the Performance Guarantees given by the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the Bankers are at liberty to allow the 1st Respondent to encash the Bank Guarantees that are given in respect of Performance Guarantees subject to other objections, if any.

  The moratorium order passed by this Tribunal applies in respect of Bank Guarantees other than Performance Guarantees furnished by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property since it comes within the meaning of ‘security interest’. Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to invoke Bank Guarantees other than that comes within the meaning of performance Guarantees, during Moratorium period.

  Coming to the aspect of disconnection of power supply by the 1st Respondent to the Applicant, it appears that without issuing any notice the power supply was disconnected to the Corporate Debtor. In the case on hand, it appears that the power supply was disconnected to the Corporate Debtor after the declaration of moratorium. Section 14(2) of the Code says, ‘the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. The supply of power is an essential goods and service with reference to the Corporate Debtor. “Essential Supplies” is defined under Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

  Therefore, following the orders passed by this Adjudicating Authority and the interim order dated 15.1.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) the Respondent No. 1 MGVCL is hereby directed to continue to supply electricity to the Corporate Debtor provided Applicant has cleared all the electricity consumption charges as on the date of disconnection.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 57 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  Production of the certificates on completion of the project - Violation of order of ‘Moratorium' - Insolvency Resolution Process - Held that:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the handing over or showing any document to any party will not amount to violation of order of ‘Moratorium’.

  In view of such observation, learned counsel for the ‘Resolution Professional’ sought permission to withdraw this appeal. Prayer is allowed. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

  ---

123