Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Surekha Bhandari vs Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors on 17 October, 2025 cites

Greater Noida Industrial Development ... vs Mr. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Another on 24 November, 2022

32. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Resolution Plan which was earlier approved on 04.03.2020 has been remitted back by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 05.03.2024 to consider the claim of NOIDA in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit Singh Soni (supra) and Appeal was filed against the said order before this Tribunal where this Tribunal categorically held that in view of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 05.03.2024, the Resolution Plan dated 04.03.2020 is no more in existence. We have already noticed the direction of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider the applications of all the Appellants. The most important feature to be noted in the present case is the fact that Resolution professional himself has filed the Affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority containing details of all applicants, including unit no., days of delay in filing the claim and amount outstanding. The aforesaid table, thus, clearly amounts to the verification of the claim and on the verification of the record of the Corporate Debtor, the said chart has been prepared and filed before the Adjudicating Authority in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2024 and 11.06.2024. Adjudicating Authority did not advert to the above Affidavit filed by the Resolution Professional and the fact that payments made by the Appellant against allotment of different units is a fact which is admitted by CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 170, 357, 359, 361,362,408,460,468,476,494,505,510,511,529, 532,575, 720, 722,728,729 of 2025 58 of 66 the Resolution Professional in its tabular chart.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mayukh Chakraborthy vs K V Developers Private Limited & Ors on 1 June, 2022

"10. There is no dispute that the liability of the CD towards the Appellant is clearly reflected in the IM. The appellant has also filed the claim belatedly and the CoC has approved the plan but the plan has not been approved by the Adjudicating Authority so far as it is pending for its consideration. The appellant has basically relied upon a decision in the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) in which this court has held that "in the present case there is no denial that details of the Appellant(s) and other homebuyers, who could not file their claims has not been reflected in the IM. There being no detail of claims of the appellant(s), the resolution applicant could not have been taken any consideration of the claim of the appellant(s), hence, resolution plan as submitted by resolution applicant cannot be faulted".
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company ... on 19 May, 2015

Appellant in this case has also relied on the judgments of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited" (supra) and "Rahul Jain vs. Nilesh Sharma" (supra). This Tribunal after hearing the parties, allowed the Appeal and has directed the Resolution Professional to give details of Resolution Applicant who was directed to include the Appellant's claim in CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 170, 357, 359, 361,362,408,460,468,476,494,505,510,511,529, 532,575, 720, 722,728,729 of 2025 53 of 66 addendum and place it before the CoC for consideration.
Competition Commission of India Cites 5 - Cited by 344 - Full Document
1