Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.41 seconds)Section 30 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 39 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. vs Monitoring Committee Of Reliance ... on 10 August, 2021
50. The ratio of the Judgement as observed in
Paragraph 47 quoted below, in case of Pratap
Technocrats (P) Ltd. v. Reliance Infratel Ltd.
Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Committee Of Creditors Of Educomp ... on 13 September, 2021
9.8 Considering the ratio of the Judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ebix Singapore
(supra), "there was no scope for negotiations between
the parties once the CoC has approved the Resolution
Plan. Thus, contractual principles and common law
remedies, which do not find a rope in the wording or the
intent of the IBC, cannot be imported in the intervening
period between the acceptance of the CoC Approved
Resolution Plan and the Approval by the Adjudicating
Authority."
J.K. (Bombay) (P) Ltd vs New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. & ... on 22 November, 1968
"12. The scheme when sanctioned does not
merely operate as an agreement between the
parties but has statutory force and is binding not
only on the Company but even dissenting
creditors or members, as the case may be. The
effect of the sanctioned scheme is "to supply by
recourse to the procedure thereby prescribed the
absence of that individual agreement by every
member of the class to be bound by the scheme
which would otherwise be necessary to give it
validity" [see J.K. (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. New
Kaiser-i-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. [AIR 1970 SC
1041: (1969) 2 SCR 866, 891: (1970) 40 Comp
Cas 689]].."
Section 7 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel ... vs Satish Kumar Gupta on 15 November, 2019
emphasised and taken further by a three-Judge
Bench in Essar Steel India Limited (supra). The
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 173 of 2021 36 of 41
Court, speaking through Justice R F Narminan,
held:
Quinn Logistics India Pvt. Ltd vs Mack Soft Tech Pvt. Ltd on 8 May, 2018
19. It is submitted that the submission of their plan is within the 'CIRP'
period and thus rightly directed by the Adjudicating Authority to consider its
plan. It is submitted that the 'CIRP' period could not have ended on
16.03.2020 as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibiting limitation
period was operative from 14.03.2020. This 'Tribunal' in Quinn Logistics
India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Macksoft Tech Pvt. Ltd. in C.A. No. 185 of 2018 has
detailed out the circumstances under which certain time periods can be
excluded for the purpose of counting total 'CIRP' period. It is submitted that
when there is a gross violation of 'CIRP' process the 'Adjudicating Authority'
has inherent powers to pass appropriate orders.