Weekly Digest of NCLAT from September, 25 to October, 1, Legal News, ET LegalWorld | Court Practice News

1. The court held that when corporate debtor was unaware of the proceedings and publication at Mumbai was not effective since registered office was not under the control and possession of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the remedy of the Corporate Debtor is to file an appeal i.e., under Rule 49 of NCLT Rules, 2016 which is a statutory remedy provided for paying for recall of the Order.

Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. v. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund & Ors.Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 879 of 202

2. The court held that the he Corporate Debtor had accepted before the AA that it is not in a position to repay `debt’ because of financial distress. Thus, the adjudicating authority ought to have admitted the Application of the Appellant under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 as there is no dispute about the `debt’ or liability of the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has admitted that it is defaulting in repayment of `debt’ due to its financial condition.

Mascot Capital and Marketing Private Limited (MCMPL) v. Savair Energy Limited (SEL)Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 309 of 2023

3. The court observed that disputes surrounding claims and counter-claims cannot be adjudicated or determined by the Adjudicating Authority given their summary jurisdiction.

Rakesh Kumar v. Flourish Paper & Chemicals Ltd.Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1161 of 2022 & I.A No.4940 of 2022 & 2552, 2733 of 2023

4. The court held that the NCLT was required to hear all the parties. Accordingly on this ground alone the impugned order can be set aside and it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the NCLT with a request to issue notice to the Respondents and after hearing all the parties if learned NCLT is satisfied that company petition was not maintainable, then sufficient reasons may be assigned while passing the order afresh

Shashank Gupta & Ors Appellant v. Pristine Infracon Pvt Ltd & OrsCompany Appeal (AT) No.122 of 2023

5. The court held that application under Section 7 was not filed for default committed during 10A period, rather the Application was specifically filed for default committed under the OTR Agreement, which is committed on 31.03.2022, which was much subsequent to 10A period. Thus, what is prohibited is initiation of proceedings for any default committed during 10A period.

Pradeep Madhukar More v. Central Bank of IndiaCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.837 of 2023

[Written by Kumar Aditya (kumar.aditya@timesinternet.in)]

  • Published On Oct 2, 2023 at 12:35 AM IST

Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals

Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis.

Download ETLegalWorld App

  • Get Realtime updates
  • Save your favourite articles

Scan to download App

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Post

In Poland, Supporters of Opposition March in Warsaw Ahead of Key Election | Court Practice News

Sun Oct 1 , 2023
Huge crowds marched through Poland’s capital, Warsaw, on Sunday, as opponents of the governing party sought to rally voters for a critical general election that they see as the last chance to save the country’s hard-won democratic freedoms. The demonstrators, after parading through the center of the city, converged around […]

You May Like

Breaking News