Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.75 seconds)
Vallal Rck vs Siva Industries And Holding Limited on 28 January, 2022 cites

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

The withdrawal leads to a status quo ante in respect of the liabilities of the corporate debtor. A withdrawal under Section 12-A is in the nature of settlement, which has to be distinguished both from a resolution plan which is approved under Section 31 and a scheme which is sanctioned under Section 230 of the Act of 2013. A resolution plan upon approval under Section 31(1) of the IBC is binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, creditors (including the central and state governments), local authorities, guarantors and other stakeholders. The approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 results in a "clean slate," as held in the judgment of this Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta. Justice Rohinton F Nariman, speaking for the three judge Bench of this Court, observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 238 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Vinayak Road Carriers vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 4 July, 2019

Company Appeal(AT)(CH)(Insolvency) Nos. 211 & 212 of 2021 25 "107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment [Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 388] in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count." 75 The benefit under Section 31, following upon the approval of the resolution plan, is that the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on "a fresh slate". The Company Appeal(AT)(CH)(Insolvency) Nos. 211 & 212 of 2021 26 scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Act of 2013 cannot certainly be equated with a withdrawal simpliciter of an application, as is contemplated under Section 12-A of the IBC.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 29 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

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

"From the aforesaid decion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Brilliant Alloys Private Ltd Vs Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors', it is clear that Regulation 30A cannot override the substantive provision of Section 12A. The Regulation has to be read alongwith the provision in Section 12A, which contains no such stipulation. No discrimination can be made for withdrawal of an application under Section 7 or Section 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date. Such cutoff date has no nexus with the objective which is to be achieved. The Adjudicating Authority having failed to notice the aforesaid provisions issued long order discussing regulations and provisions of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority should have allowed application of withdrawal filed by the Applicant-Punjab National Bank, the Committee of Creditors having approved the Settlement with 100% voting share."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2019

12. From Section 12A and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd & Anr (Supra), it is clear that the promoters/shareholders are entitled to settle the matter in terms of Section 12A and in such case, it is always open to an applicant to withdraw the application under Section 9 of the 'I&B Code' on the basis of which the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' was initiated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 118 - Cited by 349 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next