Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 264 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Committee Of Creditors Of Educomp ... on 13 September, 2021

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Ashish Chhawchharia & Anr on 21 October, 2022

In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ebix Singapore" (Supra), as noted above, after approval by the CoC, the clause for automatic withdrawal becomes redundant and Resolution Applicant has no jurisdiction to withdraw from the Resolution Plan. The condition precedents as mentioned in Para 7.6.1 are basically condition precedents required for aviation business which are must for any company carrying on aviation business. Enumeration of condition precedent is only Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 752, 643, 792, 801 915 of 2021, 361, 771 & 987 of 2022, 118 for purposes of noticing obligations of the Resolution Applicant to recommence the operations as an aviation company after obtaining necessary approvals. Such condition precedent cannot be said to be any hindrance in the approval of the plan by the Adjudicating Authority. We, thus, do not find any substance in the submission of the Appellant that the resolution plan ought to have rejected in view of the condition precedent contained in the resolution plan. The Resolution Applicant has also completed all necessary condition precedents to the satisfaction of the Monitoring Committee. We, thus, are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ebix Singapore" does not help the Appellant to support his contention that the Resolution Plan is liable to be rejected due to condition precedents.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 5 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Shrinathji Trading Company vs Sanwaria Consumer Limited Through ... on 27 July, 2022

19. While noting both the above judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the statutory scheme given in the IBC regarding the time period of CIRP in section 12 of IBC stipulates that a total of 330 days could be spent in obtaining prospective resolution plan. In the present case, approximately 559 days are over since the initiation of CIRP till the date of Impugned Order and enough opportunities have already been given to the prospective resolution applicant to provide resolution plan without success. We, therefore, follow the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educom Solutions Limited & Anr. (supra) wherein timely completion of resolution process has been considered necessary without delaying the stage of liquidation, if circumstances so require.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrinathji Trading Company vs Sanwaria Consumer Limited Through ... on 27 July, 2022

19. While noting both the above judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the statutory scheme given in the IBC regarding the time period of CIRP in section 12 of IBC stipulates that a total of 330 days could be spent in obtaining prospective resolution plan. In the present case, approximately 559 days are over since the initiation of CIRP till the date of Impugned Order and enough opportunities have already been given to the prospective resolution applicant to provide resolution plan without success. We, therefore, follow the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educom Solutions Limited & Anr. (supra) wherein timely completion of resolution process has been considered necessary without delaying the stage of liquidation, if circumstances so require.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Others vs The Consortium Of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan ... on 12 March, 2024

In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ebix Singapore" (Supra), as noted above, after approval by the CoC, the clause for automatic withdrawal becomes redundant and Resolution Applicant has no jurisdiction to withdraw from the Resolution Plan. The condition precedents as mentioned in Para 7.6.1 are basically condition precedents required for aviation business which are must for any company carrying on aviation business. Enumeration of condition precedent is only for Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 129 & 130 of 2023 -40- purposes of noticing obligations of the Resolution Applicant to recommence the operations as an aviation company after obtaining necessary approvals. Such condition precedent cannot be said to be any hindrance in the approval of the plan by the Adjudicating Authority. We, thus, do not find any substance in the submission of the Appellant that the resolution plan ought to have rejected in view of the condition precedent contained in the resolution plan. The Resolution Applicant has also completed all necessary condition precedents to the satisfaction of the Monitoring Committee. We, thus, are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ebix Singapore" does not help the Appellant to support his contention that the Resolution Plan is liable to be rejected due to condition precedents."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

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

“130. The CoC even with the requisite majority, while approving the Resolution Plan must consider the feasibility and viability of the Plan and the manner of distribution proposed, which may take into account the order of priority amongst creditors as laid down in sub-section (1) of section 53 of the IBC. The CoC cannot approve a Resolution Plan proposed by an applicant barred under Section 29A of the IBC. Regulation 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations govern the contents of a Resolution Plan. Furthermore, a Resolution Plan, if in compliance with the mandate of the IBC, cannot be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority 36 and becomes binding on its approval upon all stakeholders - including the Central and State Government, local authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, operational creditors who were not a part of the CoC and the workforce of the Corporate Debtor who would now be governed by a new management. Such features of a Resolution Plan, where a statute extensively governs the form, mode, manner and effect of approval distinguishes it from a traditional contract, specifically in its ability to bind those who have not consented to it. In the pure contractual realm, an agreement binds parties who are privy to the contract. In the context of a resolution Plan governed by the IBC, the element of privity becomes inapplicable once the Adjudicating Authority confirms the Resolution Plan under Section 31(1) and declares it to be binding on all stakeholders, who are not a part of the negotiation stage or parties to the Resolution Plan. In fact, a commentator has noted that the purpose of bankruptcy law is to actually solve a specific ‘contracting failure’ that accompanies financial distress. Such a contracting failure arises because “financial distress involves too many parties with strategic bargaining incentives and too many contingencies for the firm and its creditors to define a set of rules of every scenario.” Thus, insolvency law recognizes that parties can take benefit of such ‘incomplete contract’ to hold each other up for their individual gain. In an attempt to solve the issue of incompleteness and the hold-up threat, the insolvency law provides procedural protections i.e., “the law puts in place guardrails that give the parties room to bargain while keeping them from taking position that veer toward extreme hold up” ON MERIT
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Bank Of Maharashtra vs Videocon Industries Limited & Ors on 5 January, 2022

xi. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme court judgment in the case of Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CoC of Educomp Solutions limited & Ors. in Civil AppealNo. 3224 of 2020 to avert that the Resolution plan once approved, cannot be withdrawn is not applicable to the instant fact situation. It is submitted that the Ebix judgment decided the question of whether a successful resolution applicant can withdraw/ seek modification of in a CoC approved resolution plan, while an application for approval is pending before the Adjudicating Authority. Ebix does not consider CoC's power to reconsider a resolution plan, once approved by it. Thus, the reliance on Ebix is misplaced and ought to be rejected.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 64 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next