Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.76 seconds)State Bank Of India vs Bhuvee Stenovate Private Limited on 25 January, 2023
11. The Impugned Order does not consider compliance with Regulation 33
at all. It is submitted that a sale tainted by collusion cannot be sustained in
law. Permitting an application seeking prior permission for private sale is not
a mere formality and the NCLT ought to consider the mandatory parameters
1
State Bank of India vs Bhuvee Stenovate (2023 SCC Online NCLAT 71)
CA(AT)(Ins) Nos. 1584, 1585 of 2023 and 23, 526, 528, 492 of 2024 14 of 80
of Regulation 33 before permitting such sale. In the present case, Application
appears to be an empty formality.
Vedica Procon Private Limited vs Balleshwar Greens Private Limited And ... on 13 August, 2015
122. Leisure Enterprises LLP-R2 also relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Vedica Procon Pvt. Ltd. vs Balleshwar Greens Pvt. Ltd.
(2015) 10 SCC 94, wherein the Court reiterated the principles laid down in
CA(AT)(Ins) Nos. 1584, 1585 of 2023 and 23, 526, 528, 492 of 2024 74 of 80
the matter of Navalkha and made the following observations, which are
reproduced as under:
Section 5 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
M/S R.K. Industries Unit-Ii Llp vs M/S Hr Commercials Private Limited & Ors on 10 December, 2021
"79...Once the liquidator applies to the adjudicating authority (NCLT)
for appropriate orders/directions, including the decision to sell the
movable and immovable assets of the corporate debtor in liquidation
by adopting a particular mode of sale and the adjudicating authority
(NCLT) grants approval to such a decision, there is no provision in
IBC that empowers the appellate authority (NCLAT) to suo moto
conduct a judicial review of the said decision. The jurisdiction
bestowed upon the adjudicating authority (NCLT) and the appellate
authority (NCLAT) are circumscribed by the provisions of IBC.
Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited vs Punjab National Bank on 6 September, 2023
Further, the Respondent
Liquidator has relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Eva
Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank & Anr. - (2023) 10 SCC,
wherein it was held as under:
Navalkha & Sons vs Sri Ramanya Das & Ors on 27 October, 1969
47. A survey of the abovementioned judgments relied upon by the
first respondent does not indicate that this Court has ever laid a
principle that whenever a higher offer is received in respect of the sale
of the property of a company in liquidation, the Court would be
justified in reopening the concluded proceedings. The earliest
judgment relied upon by the first respondent in Navalkha & Sons laid
down the legal position very clearly that a subsequent higher offer is
no valid ground for refusing confirmation of a sale of offer already
made. Unfortunately in Divya Mfg. Co. this Court departed from the
principle laid down in Navalkha & Sons. We have already explained
what exactly is the departure and how such a departure was not
justified.
Shoaib Richie Sequeira vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 July, 2023
111. Appellant claims that Mr Anand Jain is being investigated by CBI for
fraud in UITL with regard to the investors under the orders of the Bombay
High Court. [Judgment in Shoaib Richie Sequeira vs State of
Maharashtra and Ors dated 31.01.2025 reported in 2025: BHC-
AS:5208-DB - para (x) at pg. 28]. This judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 17.03.2025. Per contra, it is denied by Leisure Enterprises
LLP-R2 and claims that R2 is not barred under Section 29A of the Code. On
the contrary, Liquidator claims that Appellant herein is declared to have
engaged in fraudulent activity under Section 66 of the Code. We are not going
into the merits of the claims and counter claims with respect to the criminal
background of both the Appellant and the Respondent. It is sufficient for us
to note that there has been deviation in the statutory process, which should
CA(AT)(Ins) Nos. 1584, 1585 of 2023 and 23, 526, 528, 492 of 2024 68 of 80
have been followed by the Liquidator and that vitiates the liquidation process
and casts a shadow on the conduct of the Liquidator.
S. Soundararajan And Ors. vs Khaka Mahomed Ismail Saheb Of Messrs. ... on 1 August, 1939
...it is well to bear in mind the other principle which
is equally well settled, namely that once the court comes
to the conclusion that the price offered is adequate, no
subsequent higher offer can constitute a valid ground
for refusing confirmation of the sake or offer already
received (See: the decision of the Madras High court in
Roshan & Co. case (S Soundararajan v Roshan & Co.
(1939 SCC Online Mad 205).