Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 225 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing Anuj Jain Interim Resolution ... vs Axis Bank Limited on 26 February, 2020

Manoj Gaur vs Jaypee Infratech Limited on 21 February, 2024

77. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain Vs Axis Bank Ltd." was delivered before approval of the Resolution Plan on 03.03.2020. From judgment of Jaypee Kensington of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is noticeable that even in NBCC's plan relief was sought with regard to 858 acres of land. Both the Resolution Applicants were thus well aware about order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.02.2020 and there was no occasion for not including the said land which was available for the kitty of the Corporate Debtor after release of encumbrances. We, thus, do not find any substance in submission of the Appellant that 758 acres of land has not been included in the plan submitted by Suraksha Realty.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Jaiprakash Associates Limited vs Jaypee Infratech Ltd. & Ors on 21 February, 2024

77. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain Vs Axis Bank Ltd." was delivered before approval of the Resolution Plan on 03.03.2020. From judgment of Jaypee Kensington of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is noticeable that even in NBCC's plan relief was sought with regard to 858 acres of land. Both the Resolution Applicants were thus well aware about order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.02.2020 and there was no occasion for not including the said land which was available for the kitty of the Corporate Debtor after release of encumbrances. We, thus, do not find any substance in submission of the Appellant that 758 acres of land has not been included in the plan submitted by Suraksha Realty.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Manoj Gaur vs Jaypee Infratech Limited on 21 February, 2024

77. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain Vs Axis Bank Ltd." was delivered before approval of the Resolution Plan on 03.03.2020. From judgment of Jaypee Kensington of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is noticeable that even in NBCC's plan relief was sought with regard to 858 acres of land. Both the Resolution Applicants were thus well aware about order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.02.2020 and there was no occasion for not including the said land which was available for the kitty of the Corporate Debtor after release of encumbrances. We, thus, do not find any substance in submission of the Appellant that 758 acres of land has not been included in the plan submitted by Suraksha Realty.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Jaiprakash Associates Limited vs Jaypee Infratech Ltd. & Ors on 21 February, 2024

77. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain Vs Axis Bank Ltd." was delivered before approval of the Resolution Plan on 03.03.2020. From judgment of Jaypee Kensington of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is noticeable that even in NBCC's plan relief was sought with regard to 858 acres of land. Both the Resolution Applicants were thus well aware about order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.02.2020 and there was no occasion for not including the said land which was available for the kitty of the Corporate Debtor after release of encumbrances. We, thus, do not find any substance in submission of the Appellant that 758 acres of land has not been included in the plan submitted by Suraksha Realty.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Maitreya Doshi vs Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. & Anr on 25 August, 2021

In judgment in the matter of 'Anuj Jain vs. Axis Bank Ltd.' (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the Respondents (Lenders of Jai Prakash Associate Ltd. - JAL) could be recognized as Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor - Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) on the strength of the mortgage created by the Corporate Debtor, as collateral security of the debt of its holding company JAL. In Para 33.2 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Para 13 and 14 of the judgment of NCLT in that matter where Resolution Professional had pointed out contents of the mortgage deed concerned to submit that Corporate Debtor had only agreed to create the mortgage in favour of the Applicant towards the financial assistance granted to Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 191 of 2021 21 the holding company JAL. On facts in that matter it was pointed out before NCLT that perusal of the mortgage made it clear that the Corporate Debtor had neither given any guarantee to repay or any indemnity qua the repayment of loans granted by the Applicant to JAL. With such and other facts discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 47.2 of the judgment concluded the question of law as under:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Vistra Itcl (India) Limited vs Dinkar Venkatasubramanian on 4 May, 2023

Civil Appeal No.3606 of 2020 Page 8 of 43 3.3 It is submitted that it is a case of continuous cause of action as resolution professional, CoC, Resolution Applicant and the Adjudicating Authority are all required to consider the correct categorization of the claimants. 3.4 It is submitted that in the present case, the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) commenced on 24.07.2017 and the present resolution plan (which as per the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 09.07.2020) was submitted for voting by the CoC from 07.02.2020 to 11.02.2020; which was only approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 09.07.2020 i.e., almost 3 years since the start of the CIRP. The Appellants had already challenged the non­ inclusion of the Appellants as a financial secured creditor in the CoC on 11.02.2020, which was 5 months before the resolution plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the question of delay on the part of the Appellants does not arise and neither can delay be agitated Civil Appeal No.3606 of 2020 Page 9 of 43 by the Respondents since the CIRP process under the supervision of the Resolution Professional and CoC itself carried on for 3 years, which 3 years is well beyond the timeline of 330 days as set out under the IBC. Therefore, the CoC and Resolution Professional cannot justify their delay on one hand and then seek to erode the rights of the Appellants by relying on delay. 3.5 On merits learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have vehemently submitted that the decisions of this Court in the case of Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - M R Shah - Full Document

Pawankumar Manguturam Bairagra vs Encore Asset Reconstruction Company ... on 30 April, 2024

44. The present is a case where the Corporate Debtor has given a guarantee. The Corporate Debtor having given Corporate Guarantee, both the Cooperative Bank (the original lender) and Respondent No.1 (the Assignee) were fully entitled to file Section 7 application against the Corporate Debtor. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anuj Jain's Case was on its own facts and there are distinguishing features in the present case with those of the Anuj Jain's Case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... vs Mr. Anuj Jain & Ors on 4 July, 2023

"9. Thus, we are presented with a difficult situation, wherein, Appellant No.1 - Vistra, a secured creditor, is being denied the rights under Section 52 as well as Section 53 of the Code in respect of the pledged shares, whereas, the intent of the amended Section 30(2) read with Section 31 of the Code is too contrary, as it recognises and protects the interests of other creditors who are outside the purview of the CoC. To our mind, the answer to this tricky problem is twofold. First is to treat the secured creditor as a financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor to the extent of the estimated value of the pledged share on the date of commencement of the CIRP. This would make it a member of the CoC and give it voting rights, equivalent to the estimated value of the pledged shares. However, this may require re consideration of the dictum and Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 517 & 518 of 2023 -33- ratio of Anuj Jain (supra) and Phoenix ARC (supra), which would entail reference to a larger bench. In the context of the present case, the said solution may not be viable as the resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC without Appellant No. 1 Vistra being a member of the CoC. Therefore, we would opt for the second option. The second option is to treat the Appellant No. 1 - Vistra as a secured creditor in terms of Section 52 read with Section 53 of the Code. In other words, we give the option to the successful resolution applicant - DVI (Deccan Value Investors) to treat the Appellant No.1 - Vistra as a secured creditor, who will be entitled to retain the security interest in the pledged shares, and in terms thereof, would be entitled to retain the security proceeds on the sale of the said pledged shares under Section 52 of the Code read with Rule 21A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. The second recourse available, would be almost equivalent in monetary terms for the Appellant No. 1 Vistra, who is treated it as a secured creditor and is held entitled to all rights and obligations as applicable to a secured creditor under Section 52 and 53 of the Code. This to our mind would be a fair and just solution to the legal conundrum and issue highlighted before us."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Jaypee Kensington Boulevard ... vs Nbcc (India) Ltd on 24 March, 2021

203. The resolution applicant has overtly relied upon the fact that the objector bank was not accepted as a financial creditor of JIL by this Court in Anuj Jain (supra) and has contended on this basis that the objections so raised by this bank are required to be rejected. These submissions of the resolution applicant NBCC suffer from several shortcomings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 163 - Cited by 88 - D Maheshwari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next