Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 245 (3.67 seconds)
Documents citing B.K Educational Services Pvt Ltd vs Parag Gupta And Associates on 11 October, 2018

Sabarmati Gas Limited vs Shah Alloys Limited on 4 January, 2023

38.1. It appears that at the given point of time, NCLAT had been readily adopting such a proposition in other cases too, so as to treat similar applications within limitation. This approach of NCLAT was specifically disapproved by this Court in Sagar Sharma [Sagar Sharma v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd., (2019) 10 SCC 353] where, after observing that in B.K. Educational Services [B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Paras Gupta & Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633] it had already been made clear that the date of the Code's coming into force on 1-12-2016 was wholly irrelevant to the triggering of any limitation period for the purposes of the Code, this Court said : (Sagar Sharma case [Sagar Sharma v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd., (2019) 10 SCC 353], SCC p. 354, para 3) “3. Article 141 of the Constitution of India mandates that our judgments are followed in letter and spirit. The date of coming into force of the IB Code does not and cannot form a trigger point of limitation for Page 38 of 61 applications filed under the Code. Equally, since “applications” are petitions which are filed under the Code, it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act which will apply to such applications.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 11 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Tekriwal vs Bank Of Baroda on 10 August, 2020

4. Mr Aditya Parolia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that Article 137 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 225 of 2020 8 being a residuary article would apply on the facts of this case, and as right to sue accrued only on and from 21-7-2011, three years having elapsed since then in 2014, the Section 7 application filed in 2017 is clearly out of time. He has also referred to our judgment in B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates [B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633] in order to buttress his argument that it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act which will apply to the facts of this case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sanjay Lamba vs Union Bank Of India & Anr on 8 April, 2021

59. It is well settled by a plethora of judgments of this Court as also different High Courts and, in particular, the judgment of this Court in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v. Parag Gupta Associates and Ors. (supra) the NCLT/NCLAT has the discretion to entertain an application/appeal after the prescribed period of limitation. The condition precedent for exercise of such discretion is the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal and/or the application within the period prescribed by limitation.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harsukhbhai P. Lakkad vs Bank Of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank) & ... on 12 March, 2020

4. Mr Aditya Parolia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that Article 137 being a residuary article would apply on the facts of this case, and as right to sue accrued only on and from 21-7-2011, three years having elapsed since then in 2014, the Section 7 application filed in 2017 is clearly out of time. He has also referred to our judgment in B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates [B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633] in order to buttress his argument that it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act which will apply to the facts of this case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G. Eswara Rao vs Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund & ... on 7 February, 2020

In "Sagar Sharma & Anr. vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Civil Appeal No.7673 of 2019 - (2019) 10 SCC 353", the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 30th September, 2019, referring to the decision in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited (Supra) reminded this Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1097 of 2019 Page 18 of 23 Appellate Tribunal that for application under Section 7 of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply. Article 62, which relates to deed of mortgage executed between the parties, cannot be taken into consideration for counting the period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed that Article 141 of the Constitution of India mandates that its judgments are followed in letter and spirit. The date of coming into force of IBC Code does not and cannot form a trigger point of limitation for application filed under the Code. Equally, since "applications" are petitions, which are filed under the Code, it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which will apply to such applications.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal vs Bank Of India & Anr on 7 February, 2020

4. Mr Aditya Parolia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that Article 137 being a residuary article would apply on the facts of this case, and as right to sue accrued only on and from 21-7-2011, three years having elapsed since then in 2014, the Section 7 application filed in 2017 is clearly out of time. He has also referred to our judgment in B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates [B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633] in order to buttress his argument that it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act which will apply to the facts of this case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next