Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 136 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Icici Bank Ltd vs Sidco Leathers Ltd. & Ors on 28 April, 2006

Central Bank Of India vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 27 February, 2009

A two-Judge Bench of this Court referred to the non obstante clause contained in Section 46B of the SFC Act and provisions of priority contained in Section 529A of the Companies Act as also the provisions of EPF Act and the Employees State Insurance Act, the judgments in Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India (supra), Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar [(1972) 3 SCC 196], Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. (supra), Central Bank of India v. Siriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 353], State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation and others (supra), ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. and others (supra) and approved the view taken by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 174 - Cited by 252 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

In Re: U.P. State Cement Corporation ... vs Unknown on 27 April, 2007

In ICCI Bank Ltd. v. Sidco Leathers Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 5 CLJ 470 the Supreme Court set, aside the order of High Court at Allahabad dated 4.8.2004 in Special Appeal No. 698/2002, affirmed the judgment of Single Judge (Company Judge) dated 24.5.2002. Sidco Leathers Ltd. was wound up on 16.12.1993 and the OL was appointed as Liquidator of the company. The IDBI, IFCI, ICICI had given Rupees Term Loans and Foreign Currency Loan to the company. The Punjab National Bank advanced working capital funds. A first charge was created in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd. along with other financial institutions by equitable mortgage with deposit of title deeds of the immovable properties. The Punjab National Bank secured its loan by second charge by way of constructive delivery of title deeds. The charge of Punjab National Hank was subservient to the charges in favour of IFCI, IDBI and ICICI. The ICICI filed a suit which was transferred to DRT Bombay. The High Court permitted the suit to continue under Section 446 of the Companies Act. The PNB also filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Fatehpur. The OL sold the assets and had a sum of Rs. 71,00,351/- available with him for distributions to the creditors of the company.
Allahabad High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Stci Finance Limited vs Shri Rakesh Ramanlal Shah & Ors & Ors on 27 April, 2026

120. The Appellant has relied on ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. SIDCO Leather Ltd. (2006) 10 SCC 452, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos., 1019, 1657 of 2024 & 893 of 2025 -58- a situation arising under general recovery laws where the dispute pertained to inter se priority between secured creditors in enforcement proceedings. The Court recognized the principle that a first charge holder would have priority over subsequent charge holders in such enforcement actions. However, the present case arises under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which is a complete and self-contained framework governing collective insolvency and liquidation. Moreover, in the present case, the Appellant has not been able to establish that it holds a valid and perfected first pari passu charge, as the alleged charge was conditional upon fulfilment of NOC requirements and execution of an inter se agreement, which admittedly never took place. In such a factual and legal context, the principle of priority of charge as laid down in SIDCO Leather cannot be applied to the present case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Stci Finance Limited vs Imp Powers Limited & Ors on 27 April, 2026

120. The Appellant has relied on ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. SIDCO Leather Ltd. (2006) 10 SCC 452, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos., 1019, 1657 of 2024 & 893 of 2025 -58- a situation arising under general recovery laws where the dispute pertained to inter se priority between secured creditors in enforcement proceedings. The Court recognized the principle that a first charge holder would have priority over subsequent charge holders in such enforcement actions. However, the present case arises under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which is a complete and self-contained framework governing collective insolvency and liquidation. Moreover, in the present case, the Appellant has not been able to establish that it holds a valid and perfected first pari passu charge, as the alleged charge was conditional upon fulfilment of NOC requirements and execution of an inter se agreement, which admittedly never took place. In such a factual and legal context, the principle of priority of charge as laid down in SIDCO Leather cannot be applied to the present case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs M/S.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited on 12 April, 2011

70. The ratio of the above decision makes it clear that the Companies Act cannot take away the rights of a mortgagee, which is created under the Transfer of Property Act. The Companies Act does not override the Transfer of Property Act. Any relinquishment of security or mortgage will have to be express and not implied. The Supreme Court in the said judgment approved the views of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court that participation in sale proceedings will not amount to relinquishment at all, which reads under:
Madras High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Stci Finance Limited vs Imp Powers Limited & Ors & Ors on 27 April, 2026

120. The Appellant has relied on ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. SIDCO Leather Ltd. (2006) 10 SCC 452, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos., 1019, 1657 of 2024 & 893 of 2025 -58- a situation arising under general recovery laws where the dispute pertained to inter se priority between secured creditors in enforcement proceedings. The Court recognized the principle that a first charge holder would have priority over subsequent charge holders in such enforcement actions. However, the present case arises under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which is a complete and self-contained framework governing collective insolvency and liquidation. Moreover, in the present case, the Appellant has not been able to establish that it holds a valid and perfected first pari passu charge, as the alleged charge was conditional upon fulfilment of NOC requirements and execution of an inter se agreement, which admittedly never took place. In such a factual and legal context, the principle of priority of charge as laid down in SIDCO Leather cannot be applied to the present case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Canara Bank vs Mr. S. Rajendran Liquidator Of M/S Cape ... on 7 March, 2024

We are of the considered opinion that the contentions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that Registration with Motor Vehicle Authority under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would suffice, cannot be sustained. Section 51(1) of the MV Act, 1988 only provides for "entry" in the Certificate of Registration regarding the agreement. The Section provides how to deal with the entry. To reiterate, in the instant case, as the 'Security Interest' was neither registered with the 'Information Utility'; nor under Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956/Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013; no Application was preferred under Section 87 of the Companies Act, 2013; 'Charge' was not registered in the Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, we are of the opinion that Section 52(3)(b) of the Code and Regulation 21(b) of the (Liquidation Process), Regulation, 2016 are not complied with and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (Supra) and this Tribunal in India Bulls Finance Ltd. (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, we hold that when in present matter Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 277/2023 Page 13 of 23 'Charge' was not registered as per the provisions of Section 77 (1) of the Companies Act 2013 and as envisaged under the Code, the Creditor cannot be treated as a 'Secured Creditor'.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Canara Bank vs Mr. S. Rajendran Liquidator Of M/S Cape ... on 7 March, 2024

We are of the considered opinion that the contentions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that Registration with Motor Vehicle Authority under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would suffice, cannot be sustained. Section 51(1) of the MV Act, 1988 only provides for "entry" in the Certificate of Registration regarding the agreement. The Section provides how to deal with the entry. To reiterate, in the instant case, as the 'Security Interest' was neither registered with the 'Information Utility'; nor under Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956/Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013; no Application was preferred under Section 87 of the Companies Act, 2013; 'Charge' was not registered in the Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, we are of the opinion that Section 52(3)(b) of the Code and Regulation 21(b) of the (Liquidation Process), Regulation, 2016 are not complied with and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (Supra) and this Tribunal in India Bulls Finance Ltd. (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, we hold that when in present matter Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 277/2023 Page 13 of 23 'Charge' was not registered as per the provisions of Section 77 (1) of the Companies Act 2013 and as envisaged under the Code, the Creditor cannot be treated as a 'Secured Creditor'.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Technology Development Board vs Anil Goel Liquidator Of Gujarat Oleo ... on 5 April, 2021

The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "ICICI Bank vs. Sidco Leathers Ltd. (supra)" (which is pre-IBC), ignoring the mandate of Section 53 of I&B Code which has an overriding effect and came to be enacted subsequent to the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court explicitly excluding operation of all Central and State legislations having provisions contrary to Section 53 of I&B Code, is erroneous and cannot be supported. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 731 of 2020
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next