Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 629 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2019

Aashish Jhunjhunwala & Ors vs Kshitiz Chhawhharia, Rp Of Ramsarup ... on 4 March, 2021

70. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Swiss Ribbons Private Limited vs Union of India (2019)4 SCC 17 has held that; the Financial Creditors are in the business of money lending, Banks and Financial Institutions are best equipped to assess viability and feasibility of the business of the Corporate Debtor, and since Financial Creditors have trained employees to assess viability and feasibility, they are in a good position to evaluate the contents of the Resolution Plan.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 64 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda And Anr. vs Mbl Infrastructures Limited on 18 January, 2022

52.Once a person executes a guarantee in favour of a creditor with respect to the credit facilities availed by a corporate debtor, and in a case where an application for insolvency resolution has been admitted, with the further fact of the said guarantee having been invoked, the bar qua eligibility would certainly come into play. What the provision requires is a guarantee in favour of ‘a creditor’. Once an application for insolvency resolution is admitted on behalf of ‘a creditor’ then the process would be one of rem, and therefore, all creditors of the same class would have their respective rights at par with each other. This position has also been dealt with by this Court in the case of Swiss Ribbons(supra):
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

India Resurgence Arc Pvt Ltd vs Amit Metaliks Ltd & Anr on 2 March, 2021

6. Section 30(4) of the I&B Code provides that the Committee of Creditors may approve a Resolution Plan by a vote which shall not be less than 66% of voting share of Financial Creditors. Such approval is to be done after considering the feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plan, the manner of distribution proposed therein having regard to the order of priority amongst the creditors in terms of the waterfall mechanism laid down in Section 53 of the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1061 of 2020 -16- I&B Code including the priority and value of security interest of Secured Creditor besides other requirements specified by IBBI. On a plain reading of this provision it is manifestly clear that the considerations regarding feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plan, distribution proposed with reference to the order of priority amongst creditors as per statutory distribution mechanism including priority and value of security interest of Secured Creditor are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of Committee of Creditors for consideration. These considerations must be present to the mind of the Committee of Creditors while taking a decision in regard to approval of a Resolution Plan with vote share of requisite majority. As regards amendment introduced in Section 30(4), be it seen that the amendment that it, introduced vide Section 6 (b) of Amending Act of 2019 vests discretion in the Committee of Creditors to take into account the value of security interest of a Secured Creditor in approving of a Resolution Plan. It's a guideline and not imperative in terms, which may be taken into account by the Committee of Creditors in arriving at a decision as regards approval or rejection of a Resolution Plan, such decision being essentially a business decision based on commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chandrahas Kuchya vs Insta Power Limited on 17 September, 2025

In the judgment delivered on 25-1- 2019 in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India82 hereinafter also referred to as the case of "Swiss Ribbons"), this Court traversed through the historical background and scheme of the Code in the wake of challenge to the constitutional validity of various provisions therein. One part of such challenge had been founded on the ground that the classification between "financial creditor" and "operational creditor" was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This ground as also several other grounds pertaining CS(COMM)661/23 Chandrahas Kuchya Vs. Insta Power Limited Page 24 of 33 to various provisions of the Code were rejected by this Court after elaborate dilation on the vast variety of rival contentions. In the course, this Court took note, inter alia, of the pre-existing state of law as also the objects and reasons for enactment of the Code. While observing that focus of the Code was to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor, where liquidation would be the last resort, this Court pointed out that on its scheme and framework, the Code was a beneficial legislation to put the corporate debtor on its feet, and not a mere recovery legislation for the creditors."
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Martin S.K. Golla vs Wig Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 4 June, 2021

For reasons recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Judgments, the reasons recorded by the Adjudicating Authority to stretch the interpretations so as to hold that once CIRP is commenced, provisions as existing on the day of admission of the Petition would continue to apply even in the face of amendment brought about by way of Section 29A, the reasons cannot be maintained. Even the Respondent No.2 - Bank of Baroda in its arguments (Diary No.25967) accepts that Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.121 of 2019 13 Section 29A of IBC was with effect from 23rd November, 2017 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Swiss Ribbons vs. Union of India" (referred supra) has upheld the insertion of Section 29A with retrospective effect.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Piyush Bokaria vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 September, 2020

208. On the primary question of switching over to judicial “silent mode” or “hands off mode”, qua economic legislation, it is not necessary to catalogue all the decisions of this court such as State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 656, G.K. Krishnan v. Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 375, R. K. Garg v. Union of India (supra), State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566, P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 696, Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India (supra), T.Velayudhan v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 582, Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 405, Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 471, Ugar Sugar Works ltd. v. Delhi Administration, (2001) 3 SCC 635, BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (supra), Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720, Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561, D.G. of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports, (2016) 2 SCC 226, State of J&K v. Trikuta Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 260, and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416, as the entire history of the doctrine of deference from Lochner Era has been summarized by this court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra). In fact, even the learned Counsel for the petitioners is ad idem http://www.judis.nic.in 80 of 94 W.P No.12586 of 2020 with the learned Senior Counsel for RBI that economic regulations require due judicial deference. The actual argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that such deference may differ in degree from being very weak in respect of the decision of a statutory authority, to being very strong in respect of a legislative enactment.
Madras High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Hpcl Bio-Fuels Ltd vs Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad on 7 November, 2024

In the judgment delivered on 25-1-2019 in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India82 (hereinafter also referred to as the case of “Swiss Ribbons”), this Court traversed through the historical background and scheme of the Code in the wake of challenge to the constitutional validity of various provisions therein. One part of such challenge had been founded on the ground that the classification between “financial creditor” and “operational creditor” was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This ground as also Page 62 of 79 several other grounds pertaining to various provisions of the Code were rejected by this Court after elaborate dilation on the vast variety of rival contentions. In the course, this Court took note, inter alia, of the pre-existing state of law as also the objects and reasons for enactment of the Code. While observing that focus of the Code was to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor, where liquidation would be the last resort, this Court pointed out that on its scheme and framework, the Code was a beneficial legislation to put the corporate debtor on its feet, and not a mere recovery legislation for the creditors.” (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next