Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 520 (1.94 seconds)
Documents citing K. Sashidhar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 5 February, 2019

Zenith Infrastructure vs Mr. V. Venkatachalam on 11 March, 2022

• Considering the contractual relationship and also commercial in nature between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant, the Appellant cannot claim parity alongwith other workmen of the Corporate Debtor. • Keeping in view the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank and Ghanashyam Mishra Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (Supra) this 'Tribunal' is of the considered view that there is no substantial grounds to set the clock back especially in the light of the fact that the 'Resolution Plan' has been implemented two years ago and the change in the Management of the 'Corporate Debtor' has also been effectuated and the interest of the Appellant has been fully considered.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zenith Infrastructure vs Mr. V. Venkatachalam on 11 March, 2022

• Considering the contractual relationship and also commercial in nature between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant, the Appellant cannot claim parity alongwith other workmen of the Corporate Debtor. • Keeping in view the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank and Ghanashyam Mishra Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (Supra) this 'Tribunal' is of the considered view that there is no substantial grounds to set the clock back especially in the light of the fact that the 'Resolution Plan' has been implemented two years ago and the change in the Management of the 'Corporate Debtor' has also been effectuated and the interest of the Appellant has been fully considered.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Tata Steel Limited vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 4 July, 2022

... Thus, it is clear that the limited judicial review available, which can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of the Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code, insofar as the adjudicating authority is concerned, and Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the Code, insofar as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the parameters of such review having been clearly laid down in K. Sashidhar [K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 222] .'
Allahabad High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Piramal Capital And Housing Finance ... vs 63 Moons Technologies Limited) on 1 April, 2025

67. As observed in K. Sashidhar (supra), the Financial Creditors forming CoC, act on the basis of thorough examination of the proposed RPs and the assessment made by their team of experts. The entire process has to be carried out in an absolutely Civil Appeal Nos. 1632-1634 of 2022 Page 99 of 145 transparent manner, and each and every aspect relating to the RP, and more particularly its financial layout and the measures proposed for maximization of the value of the assets of the CD, has to be placed before the CoC. The CoC, if after considering such measures for maximization of the value of the assets of the CD as proposed by the RA in the RP submitted by it, and considering the feasibility, viability and such other requirements as mandated in the IBC and in the Regulations, 2016, approves the plan with the requisite number of votes as required under Section 30(4), after exercising its commercial wisdom, then the scope of judicial review by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 will be limited only to the extent of satisfying itself about the compliance of the requirements of Section 30(2). The judicial review by the Appellate Authority under Section 61 in the appeal against the order of Adjudicating Authority approving the plan, is further limited to the grounds mentioned in Clauses (i) to (v) specified in sub- section (3) of Section 61.
Supreme Court of India Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh Suspended Director Of ... vs Atul Kumar Kansal & Ors on 1 July, 2024

Thus, the SRA was conscious that even if there is shortfall in funding, there was backup Plan. Hence, on the ground that there was no certainty regarding saleable area available to the SRA and there was certain discrepancy regarding saleable area in the addendum to Informaton Memorandum and the Resolution Plan, is not a ground on which the approval of Resolution Plan can be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority. We have already noticed the scope and extent of the Adjudicating Authority under which the Adjudicating Authority can interfere with the commercial decision of the CoC approving of the Resolution Plan. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. has been noticed above. The Adjudicating Authority has also referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vallal RCK vs. M/s Siva Industries and Holdings Litd. And Ors. - Civil Appeal Nos.1811-1812 of 2022, which we have already extracted above. We, thus, are of the view that approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC, being compliant of Section 30, sub-section (2), has rightly been approved by the Adjudicating Authority and no grounds have been made out in these Appeal(s) to interfere with the approval of Resolution Plan. Question Nos.(XIII) and (XIV) are answered in following manner:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Cimco Projects Private Limited vs Crown Realtech Private Limited & Ors on 1 July, 2024

Thus, the SRA was conscious that even if there is shortfall in funding, there was backup Plan. Hence, on the ground that there was no certainty regarding saleable area available to the SRA and there was certain discrepancy regarding saleable area in the addendum to Informaton Memorandum and the Resolution Plan, is not a ground on which the approval of Resolution Plan can be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority. We have already noticed the scope and extent of the Adjudicating Authority under which the Adjudicating Authority can interfere with the commercial decision of the CoC approving of the Resolution Plan. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. has been noticed above. The Adjudicating Authority has also referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vallal RCK vs. M/s Siva Industries and Holdings Litd. And Ors. - Civil Appeal Nos.1811-1812 of 2022, which we have already extracted above. We, thus, are of the view that approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC, being compliant of Section 30, sub-section (2), has rightly been approved by the Adjudicating Authority and no grounds have been made out in these Appeal(s) to interfere with the approval of Resolution Plan. Question Nos.(XIII) and (XIV) are answered in following manner:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Amarjit Singh vs Atul Kumar Kansal & Ors on 1 July, 2024

Thus, the SRA was conscious that even if there is shortfall in funding, there was backup Plan. Hence, on the ground that there was no certainty regarding saleable area available to the SRA and there was certain discrepancy regarding saleable area in the addendum to Informaton Memorandum and the Resolution Plan, is not a ground on which the approval of Resolution Plan can be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority. We have already noticed the scope and extent of the Adjudicating Authority under which the Adjudicating Authority can interfere with the commercial decision of the CoC approving of the Resolution Plan. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. has been noticed above. The Adjudicating Authority has also referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vallal RCK vs. M/s Siva Industries and Holdings Litd. And Ors. - Civil Appeal Nos.1811-1812 of 2022, which we have already extracted above. We, thus, are of the view that approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC, being compliant of Section 30, sub-section (2), has rightly been approved by the Adjudicating Authority and no grounds have been made out in these Appeal(s) to interfere with the approval of Resolution Plan. Question Nos.(XIII) and (XIV) are answered in following manner:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next