Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)
Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd vs Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi on 1 October, 2024 cites

Vallal Rck vs M/S Siva Industries And Holdings ... on 3 June, 2022

70. We may also notice another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of `Vallal RCK' Vs. `Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd.', reported in (2022) 9 SCC 803, where Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that there is an intrinsic assumption, that Financial Creditors are fully CA (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1619 & 1620; 1621 & 1622; & 1696 & 1697 of 2024 76 informed about the viability of the Corporate Debtor and feasibility of the proposed Resolution Plan. We may refer to Paragraphs 21 & 22, which are as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 11 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. on 15 March, 2021

72. The law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above cases as well as the cases referred therein, clearly give paramount importance to the decision of the CoC taken in commercial wisdom to approve a Resolution Plan and Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined the limited jurisdiction of NCLT and NCLAT to interfere with the said decision of the CoC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 42 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Keshardeo Chamria vs Radha Kissen Chamria And Othersradha ... on 30 October, 1952

"34. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria [Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria, (1952) 2 SCC CA (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1619 & 1620; 1621 & 1622; & 1696 & 1697 of 2024 74 329 : 1953 SCR 136] while considering the scope of the words "material irregularity", as are found in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : (SCC para 26) "26.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 164 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

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

"21. This Court has consistently held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention for ensuring completion of the stated processes within the timelines prescribed by the IBC. It has been held that there is an intrinsic assumption, that financial creditors are fully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility of the proposed resolution plan. They act on the basis of thorough examination of the proposed resolution plan and assessment made by their team of experts. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgments of this Court in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank [K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 222] , Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta [Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443] , Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh [Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh, (2020) 11 SCC 467 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 799] , Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. [Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd., (2021) 10 SCC 401 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 233] and Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Assn. v. NBCC (India) Ltd. [Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Assn. v. NBCC (India) Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 401 : (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 165]
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 66 - Cited by 188 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Ajay Gupta vs Pramod Kumar Sharma on 25 February, 2022

"2. The appellant seeks to question the judgment and order dated 13-1-2022 [Ajay Gupta v. Pramod Kumar Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 93] as passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter also referred to as "Nclat" or "the Appellate Tribunal") in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 35 of 2022 whereby, the Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in the order dated 13-12-2021 [Bank of India v. B.B. Foods (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCLT 662] passed in IA No. 367 of 2021 in CP No. (IB) 349/ALD/2018 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter also referred to as "NCLT" or "the adjudicating authority") by which, the Tribunal granted the prayer of the appellant to amend his resolution plan dated 22-10-2021 but, at the same time, also allowed the other resolution applicant to place any modification in their resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors ("CoC" for short)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Roshan Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh 34 Crr/1114/2017 ... on 15 January, 2018

78. The present is the case where CoC and RP did not grant any opportunity to Sarda to modify or amend the terms of the Resolution Plan. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment noticed that the above was a case where question of modification of the Resolution Plan was involved hence liberty was granted to other Resolution Applicant to modify its Plan which Order was maintained. In Paragraph 13 as noted above, observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are "this much is clear that certain key features/stipulations of the Resolution Plan were sought to be amended by the Appellant". Thus, the Judgment of the `Ajay Gupta' (Supra) was in the background when Appellant sought to amend the Resolution Plan hence CA (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1619 & 1620; 1621 & 1622; & 1696 & 1697 of 2024 83 the liberty was granted to other Resolution Applicants also to modify its Plan in Paragraph 10.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1