Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Brilliant Alloys Private Limited vs Mr. S. Rajagopal on 14 December, 2018

Krishna Kumar Mintri vs Kamlesh Kumar Singhania & Anr on 27 February, 2019

7. From the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Brilliant Alloys Private Limited Vs. Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors.', it is clear that Regulation 30A cannot override the substantive provision of Section 12A. The Regulation has to be read alongwith the provision in Section 12A, which contains no such stipulation. No discrimination can be made for withdrawal of an application under Section 7 or Section 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date. Such cutoff date has no nexus with the objective which is to be achieved. The Adjudicating Authority having failed to notice the aforesaid provisions issued long order discussing regulations and provisions of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority should have allowed application of withdrawal filed by the Applicant - Punjab National Bank, the Committee of Creditors having approved the Settlement with 100% voting share.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Committee Of Creditors Of Educomp ... on 13 September, 2021

However, on 14 December 2018, a two judge Bench of this Court, held in Brilliant Alloys (P) Ltd v. S Rajagopal102 that Regulation 30A is directory, and not mandatory in nature since Section 12A of the IBC does not stipulate a deadline by which a withdrawal from the CIRP can be made. Thus, in exceptional cases withdrawals from the CIRP under Section 12A of IBC could be permitted even after the invitation of EOI has been issued. Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations was then amended by the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations 2019, w.e.f. 25 July 2019 to reiterate the decision of this Court. The newly amended provision allows for withdrawals even after the invitation for expression of interest has been issued, provided that the applicant states the reasons justifying such withdrawal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 102 - Cited by 115 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Vallal Rck vs Siva Industries And Holding Limited on 28 January, 2022

"From the aforesaid decion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Brilliant Alloys Private Ltd Vs Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors', it is clear that Regulation 30A cannot override the substantive provision of Section 12A. The Regulation has to be read alongwith the provision in Section 12A, which contains no such stipulation. No discrimination can be made for withdrawal of an application under Section 7 or Section 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date. Such cutoff date has no nexus with the objective which is to be achieved. The Adjudicating Authority having failed to notice the aforesaid provisions issued long order discussing regulations and provisions of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority should have allowed application of withdrawal filed by the Applicant-Punjab National Bank, the Committee of Creditors having approved the Settlement with 100% voting share."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt Ltd vs Vishram Narayan Panchpor Resolution ... on 30 November, 2021

48. At this stage this tribunal worth recalls and recollects the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated in Brilliant Alloys Pvt Ltd V. Mr. S. Rajagopal and Ors, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31557/2018, wherein it is observed that Regulation 30A(1) is not mandatory but is directory for the simple reason that on the facts of a given case, an application for withdrawal may be allowed in exceptional cases even after issue of invitation for Expression of Interest under Regulation 36A.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vallal Rck vs Siva Industries And Holding Limited on 28 January, 2022

"From the aforesaid decion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Brilliant Alloys Private Ltd Vs Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors', it is clear that Regulation 30A cannot override the substantive provision of Section 12A. The Regulation has to be read alongwith the provision in Section 12A, which contains no such stipulation. No discrimination can be made for withdrawal of an application under Section 7 or Section 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date. Such cutoff date has no nexus with the objective which is to be achieved. The Adjudicating Authority having failed to notice the aforesaid provisions issued long order discussing regulations and provisions of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority should have allowed application of withdrawal filed by the Applicant-Punjab National Bank, the Committee of Creditors having approved the Settlement with 100% voting share."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Rps Infrastructure Ltd. vs Mukul Kumar on 11 September, 2023

decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count.” On the other hand, the appellant explained that it could not file the claim in time as it was unaware of the public announcement. A belated claim should not be shut out as the time-periods in the IBC are merely directory and not mandatory as per Brilliant Alloys Private Limited v. Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors.,2 and in any case the resolution plan was yet to be approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant contended that respondent no.1 had failed to discharge his duty to include the appellant’s claim in the information memorandum as a contingent liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Glas Trust Company Llc vs Byju Raveendran on 23 October, 2024

In essence, the regulation in its amended form, deviates from its earlier form by also responding to the decision of this Court in Brilliant Alloy Private Limited (supra). Unlike the unamended regulation, the regulation acknowledges the possibility of withdrawal even after the invitation for expression has been issued. However, it mandates that an application for withdrawal in such cases must be accompanied by reasons. Page 42 of 61 PART D
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Ptc India Financial Services Limited on 24 December, 2024

62. Brilliant Alloys Private Limited Vs. S.Rajagopal 18, a judgment of 2018, was considered in Ebix Singapore Private Limited (supra) pronounced by the Supreme Court in 2022 where it was held that an application under section 12A cannot be maintained once a Resolution Plan is approved by CoC. Ebix further held that a Resolution Plan once approved by the CoC and submitted before the NCLT is binding on the CoC, the successful Resolution Applicant and the concerned stakeholders.
Telangana High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jai Kishan Gupta vs Green Edge Buildtech Llp & Anr on 6 December, 2019

- in short) and dealing with Regulation 30-A, relating to withdrawal of Application the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier Judgement in the matter of "Brilliant Alloys Private Limited versus S. Rajagopal & Ors." reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3154 to observe that Regulation 30-A(1) was not mandatory but that it was directory. It was then observed in para - 82 of the Judgement as under:-
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next