Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 47 (0.42 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
45. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that we are dealing
with a case where the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act
was filed after the 2015 Amendment, therefore the newly
substituted/added Explanations would apply [Ssangyong Engg. &
Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131].
Section 60 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private ... vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... on 13 April, 2021
Upon consideration of the factual matrix in
Ghanshyam case, it is seen that there is a fundamental distinction
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 45 of 85
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51
of facts and therefore, the ratio of those documents cannot be
applied to the present case. In the case of Ghanshyam, the Clean
Slate Theory (CST) was applied in favour of third-party Resolution
Applicants who had no prior connection with the corporate debtor
and who took over the company pursuant to a resolution plan
approved under Section 31 of the IB Code. The ratio of the above
judgment in Ghanshyam of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was clearly
intended to shield bona fide, unrelated Resolution Applicants from
the risk of undecided or undisclosed claims that could threaten the
viability of the revival plan. The said decision in Ghanshyam
Mishra is distinguishable on facts, since in the present case no third
party Resolution-Applicant is involved.
Section 61 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel ... vs Satish Kumar Gupta on 15 November, 2019
51. Consequently, the view taken by the High Court that
notwithstanding approval of the resolution plan by the
National Company Law Tribunal, the Facilitation Council
did not lose Jurisdiction to proceed and pronounce the
arbitral award, is erroneous and contrary to the law laid
down by this court.