Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Tejas Khandhar vs Bank Of Baroda on 12 July, 2022

Precious Energy Holdings Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 6 January, 2023

14. Keeping in view the aforenoted ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda)' (Supra), this Tribunal is of the considered view that the OTS proposal dated 01.08.2016 and the subsequent one on 27.03.2018 falls within the definition of the ambit of 'acknowledgement of debt' as envisaged under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and is therefore squarely covered by the aforenoted Judgement.'' 2nd Respondent / IRP's Contentions:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajender Kumar Pahwa (Suspended ... vs Canara Bank on 3 September, 2025

42. It is also submitted that although the account of the appellant was classified as NPA on 30.09.2015 and the period of limitation would have expired on 30.09.2018 however the period stood extended due to the execution of the fresh working capital consortium agreement dated 01.03.2017 between the appellant and the consortium of banks and thus the limitation period extended by 3 years till 01.03.2020 and thereafter various OTS were proposed by the appellant on 06.12.2019, 28.01.2020, 26.02.2021, 18.03.2021, 15.05.2021, 17.03.2021, 07.12.2022, 24.01.2023, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024 17 of38 06.05.2023, 06.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 10.05.2025 therefore keeping in view the fact that the acknowledgement of the debt has been made up to 10.05.2025 the application has been filed by the bank within the stipulated time, as the limitation has extended by the acknowledgement of debt by the appellant in terms of section 18 of the Limitation Act, Reliance in this regard has been placed on 'Tejas Khandhar vs Bank of Baroda', CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 .
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajender Kumar Pahwa (Suspended ... vs Canara Bank on 3 September, 2025

42. It is also submitted that although the account of the appellant was classified as NPA on 30.09.2015 and the period of limitation would have expired on 30.09.2018 however the period stood extended due to the execution of the fresh working capital consortium agreement dated 01.03.2017 between the appellant and the consortium of banks and thus the limitation period extended by 3 years till 01.03.2020 and thereafter various OTS were proposed by the appellant on 06.12.2019, 28.01.2020, 26.02.2021, 18.03.2021, 15.05.2021, 17.03.2021, 07.12.2022, 24.01.2023, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024 17 of38 06.05.2023, 06.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 10.05.2025 therefore keeping in view the fact that the acknowledgement of the debt has been made up to 10.05.2025 the application has been filed by the bank within the stipulated time, as the limitation has extended by the acknowledgement of debt by the appellant in terms of section 18 of the Limitation Act, Reliance in this regard has been placed on 'Tejas Khandhar vs Bank of Baroda', CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 .
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajender Kumar Pahwa (Suspended ... vs Canara Bank on 3 September, 2025

42. It is also submitted that although the account of the appellant was classified as NPA on 30.09.2015 and the period of limitation would have expired on 30.09.2018 however the period stood extended due to the execution of the fresh working capital consortium agreement dated 01.03.2017 between the appellant and the consortium of banks and thus the limitation period extended by 3 years till 01.03.2020 and thereafter various OTS were proposed by the appellant on 06.12.2019, 28.01.2020, 26.02.2021, 18.03.2021, 15.05.2021, 17.03.2021, 07.12.2022, 24.01.2023, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024 17 of38 06.05.2023, 06.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 10.05.2025 therefore keeping in view the fact that the acknowledgement of the debt has been made up to 10.05.2025 the application has been filed by the bank within the stipulated time, as the limitation has extended by the acknowledgement of debt by the appellant in terms of section 18 of the Limitation Act, Reliance in this regard has been placed on 'Tejas Khandhar vs Bank of Baroda', CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 .
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajender Kumar Pahwa (Suspended ... vs Canara Bank on 3 September, 2025

42. It is also submitted that although the account of the appellant was classified as NPA on 30.09.2015 and the period of limitation would have expired on 30.09.2018 however the period stood extended due to the execution of the fresh working capital consortium agreement dated 01.03.2017 between the appellant and the consortium of banks and thus the limitation period extended by 3 years till 01.03.2020 and thereafter various OTS were proposed by the appellant on 06.12.2019, 28.01.2020, 26.02.2021, 18.03.2021, 15.05.2021, 17.03.2021, 07.12.2022, 24.01.2023, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024 17 of38 06.05.2023, 06.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 10.05.2025 therefore keeping in view the fact that the acknowledgement of the debt has been made up to 10.05.2025 the application has been filed by the bank within the stipulated time, as the limitation has extended by the acknowledgement of debt by the appellant in terms of section 18 of the Limitation Act, Reliance in this regard has been placed on 'Tejas Khandhar vs Bank of Baroda', CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 .
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajender Kumar Pahwa (Suspended ... vs Canara Bank on 3 September, 2025

42. It is also submitted that although the account of the appellant was classified as NPA on 30.09.2015 and the period of limitation would have expired on 30.09.2018 however the period stood extended due to the execution of the fresh working capital consortium agreement dated 01.03.2017 between the appellant and the consortium of banks and thus the limitation period extended by 3 years till 01.03.2020 and thereafter various OTS were proposed by the appellant on 06.12.2019, 28.01.2020, 26.02.2021, 18.03.2021, 15.05.2021, 17.03.2021, 07.12.2022, 24.01.2023, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024 17 of38 06.05.2023, 06.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 10.05.2025 therefore keeping in view the fact that the acknowledgement of the debt has been made up to 10.05.2025 the application has been filed by the bank within the stipulated time, as the limitation has extended by the acknowledgement of debt by the appellant in terms of section 18 of the Limitation Act, Reliance in this regard has been placed on 'Tejas Khandhar vs Bank of Baroda', CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 .
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Colliers International (India) ... vs Sas Itower Private Limited on 22 April, 2026

(a) As rendered in Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 371 / 2020 in the matters of Tejas Khandar v. Bank of Baroda, which was dealing with the issue pertaining to taking the additional documents on record, required to be taken on record including the copy of the One Time Settlement thereof involved in the said Company Appeal. I was a case of taking documents for consideration at an Appellate stage under Rule 73 of NCLAT Rules, 2016.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nikita Trehan vs Priviege Healthcare Service Pvt Ltd on 4 July, 2025

12. Since, the debt and default was admitted by the CD because it had entered into a settlement to pay the amount paid, therefore, the Tribunal admitted the application filed under Section 7 of the code while giving reference to a decision of this court in the case of Tejas Khandhar Vs. Bank of Baroda, CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 in which it has been held that OTS proposal amounts to acknowledgement of debt and another judgment of this 5 Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Mittal Vs. GRJ Distributors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. , CA (AT) (Ins) No. 579 of 2019 was referred to in which it has been held that restoration can be allowed in terms of Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules coupled with the fact that the application bearing I.A No. 3663 of 2023 which was allowed by the order dated 28.06.2020 was not challenged by the CD. It has also been noted that there was no appeal filed to the order of restoration dated 28.06.2024.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nikita Trehan vs Priviege Healthcare Service Pvt Ltd on 4 July, 2025

12. Since, the debt and default was admitted by the CD because it had entered into a settlement to pay the amount paid, therefore, the Tribunal admitted the application filed under Section 7 of the code while giving reference to a decision of this court in the case of Tejas Khandhar Vs. Bank of Baroda, CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 in which it has been held that OTS proposal amounts to acknowledgement of debt and another judgment of this 5 Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Mittal Vs. GRJ Distributors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. , CA (AT) (Ins) No. 579 of 2019 was referred to in which it has been held that restoration can be allowed in terms of Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules coupled with the fact that the application bearing I.A No. 3663 of 2023 which was allowed by the order dated 28.06.2020 was not challenged by the CD. It has also been noted that there was no appeal filed to the order of restoration dated 28.06.2024.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Industrial Promotion And ... vs Ores Ispat Private Limited on 13 March, 2024

3. Be that as it may, it is submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) versus C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2020 and the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Tejas Khandhar Vs. Bank of Baroda, CA (AT) (Ins) No. 371 of 2020 decided on 12.07.2022, the Appellant can file an application for additional evidence. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed an application to bring on record the balance sheets of the Respondent and the veracity of the said balance sheets has not been contested by the Respondent.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next