Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Lalit Kumar Jain vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2021

Ifci Limited Through Its Authorized ... vs Ashok Kumar Sara Wgi Resolution ... on 22 September, 2025

12. We have noted that in the present case the claim, along with proof, was submitted by the appellant before the Resolution Professional within time of 90 days allowed under the Regulation 12. It was only due to legal interpretation that the claim was not admitted by the Resolution Professional. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already settled the issue in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain case, (supra) on 21.05.2021. Admittedly, there was delay on part of the appellant in bringing this judgment to notice of the Resolution Professional. However, the Resolution Professional being a technical expert was also duty bound to implement the law of the land. As we have noted earlier, it is the duty of the IRP/RP to receive, collate and verify the claims as per law. In our view, there was no delay on the part of the appellant in submitting its claim, along with proof, in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The omission or error on part of the Resolution Professional in admitting the claim materially affects the resolution plan. However, the resolution plan is yet to be approved by Ld. NCLT. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Ld. NCLT erred in rejecting the IA No. 1372/KB/2023 regarding claim of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside for the aforesaid reasons. The Resolution Professional is directed to verify and entertain the claim of the appellant as per law. Accordingly, the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1012 of 2024 14 instant appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, are also closed.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Bank vs Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia on 21 May, 2025

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Narendra Singh Panwar vs. Pashcimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd." vide its judgment dated 12.01.2023 has reiterated proposition laid down in "Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India" that approval of Resolution Plan does not ipso facto absolve the Guarantor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract of Guarantee.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Paresh Rastogi vs M/S Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. ... on 18 March, 2025

This principle has been upheld in decisions such as Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it was held that even if the resolution plan is approved, the same Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024 40 of 46 does not discharge the personal guarantor. The relevant portion of the judgement is reiterated hereunder:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Piyush Rastogi vs M/S Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. ... on 18 March, 2025

This principle has been upheld in decisions such as Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it was held that even if the resolution plan is approved, the same Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024 40 of 46 does not discharge the personal guarantor. The relevant portion of the judgement is reiterated hereunder:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Deepak Rastogi vs M/S Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. ... on 18 March, 2025

This principle has been upheld in decisions such as Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it was held that even if the resolution plan is approved, the same Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024 40 of 46 does not discharge the personal guarantor. The relevant portion of the judgement is reiterated hereunder:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Punjab National Bank vs Sandwoods Infratech Projects Pvt Ltd ... on 3 January, 2024

The reference made by the Appellant to the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State Bank of India v. Ramakrishnan & Anr. and Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India matter is distinguishable as when those judgements were passed, provisions of Part-III of the IBC was not yet notified and was not applicable to Personal Guarantors of the Corporate Debtor.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 10 December, 2025

28. Therefore, we are satisfied that the applications filed by the 3rd Respondent before the DRT were not maintainable or 4 (2022) ibclaw.in 16 SC Page 12 of 13 ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:54:54 ::: 18-WP-9380-2024++F.DOCX competent. The DRT, given the law laid down in Lalit Kumar Jain (supra), should have either dismissed the applications for want of jurisdiction or transferred the same to NCLT, at least after the Petitioners herein pointed out the pendency of proceedings before the NCLT and the NCLT's order dated 16 February 2024.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next