Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (3.36 seconds)
Shrawan Kumar Agrawal Consortium vs Rituraj Steel Pvt Ltd & Ors on 5 March, 2020 cites

K. Sashidhar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 5 February, 2019

15. Thus it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority is having limited power of judicial scrutiny under Section 31, which has to remain within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code and the same cannot, in any circumstance, trespass upon the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The directions of the Adjudicating Authority for re-bidding, after the approval of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1490/2019, 78/2020 and 184/2020 Page 20 of 24 Resolution Plan by the requisite majority, is not in consonance with the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K. Shashidhar (supra) case, as a Resolution Plan is neither a sale nor an auction but it all depends on the "commercial wisdom" of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the adjudicating authority and „that is made non-justiciable‟.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 66 - Cited by 188 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel ... vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 January, 2019

"28. The Appellate Authority has, in our opinion, proceeded on equitable perception rather than commercial wisdom. On the face of it, release of assets at a value 20% below its liquidation value arrived at by the valuers seems inequitable. Here, we feel the Court ought to cede ground to the commercial wisdom of the creditors rather than assess the resolution plan on the basis of quantitative analysis. Such is the scheme of the Code. Section 31(1) of the Code lays down in clear terms that for final approval of a resolution plan, the Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied that the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Code has been complied with. The proviso to Section 31(1) of the Code stipulates the other point on which an Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied. That factor is that the resolution plan has provisions for its implementation. The scope of interference by the Adjudicating Authority in limited judicial review has been laid down in the case of Essar Steel (supra), the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1490/2019, 78/2020 and 184/2020 Page 18 of 24 relevant passage (para 54) of which we have reproduced in earlier part of this judgment. The case of MSL in their appeal is that they want to run the company and infuse more funds. In such circumstances, we do not think the Appellate Authority ought to have interfered with the order of the Adjudicating Authority in directing the successful Resolution Applicant to enhance their fund inflow upfront.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 164 - Full Document

Macquarie Bank Limited vs Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd on 15 December, 2017

45. As has already been seen hereinabove, it is the Adjudicating Authority which first admits an application by a financial or operational creditor, or by the corporate debtor itself under Section 7, 9 and 10 of the Code. Once this is done, within the parameters fixed by the Code, and as expounded upon by our judgments in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 and Macquarie Bank Ltd. v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 674, the Adjudicating Authority then appoints an interim resolution professional who takes administrative decisions as to the day to day running of the corporate Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1490/2019, 78/2020 and 184/2020 Page 13 of 24 debtor; collation of claims and their admissions; and the calling for resolution plans in the manner stated above. After a resolution plan is approved by the requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors, the aforesaid plan must then pass muster of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 30(2) of the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 95 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next