Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)
Mukul Kumar Resolution Professional Of ... vs Rps Infrastructure Ltd on 30 July, 2021 cites

Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel ... vs Satish Kumar Gupta on 15 November, 2019

34. With the aforesaid, we are of the view that when the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and it is pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval, at this stage, if new claims are entertained the CIRP would be jeopardized and the Resolution Process may become more difficult. Keeping in view the object of the IBC which is resolution of Corporate Debtor in time bound manner to maximize the value, if such request of claimant is accepted the purpose of IBC would be defeated. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd. (Supra) held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 238 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Brilliant Alloys Private Limited vs Mr. S. Rajagopal on 14 December, 2018

30. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Regulations are directory but not mandatory and for this purpose, placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brilliant Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). In this Judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the provision of Section 12(A) with the Regulation 30 and held that the stipulation in the Regulations can only be construed as directory depending on the facts of each case. There is no ratio of the Judgment that the Regulations are directory and not mandatory.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Shree Sidhivinayak Cotspin Private ... vs Resolution Professional Of Maruti ... on 20 August, 2020

9. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Ld. Adjudicating Authority erroneously on an extremist ground directed the RP to consider the claim of the Respondent on merits. Such a direction is against the proposition laid down by this Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sr. Sidhivinayak Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Resolution Professional of Maruti Cotex Limited &Anr. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 694 of 2020 and Office of the Assistant State Tax Commission State Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Parthiv Parikh &Ors. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 583 of 2020 and the same preposition was reiterated by this Appellate Tribunal in the case of Harish Polymer Product Vs. Mr. George Samuel, RP for Jason Dekor Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 420 of 2021. Therefore, it is requested that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1