Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)

Plus Corporate Ventures Private ... vs Transnational Growth Fund Ltd on 31 October, 2022

36. However, in the present case, Unlike Plus Corporate Ventures (Supra), where the default date clearly fell within the Section 10A period, there is dispute in the current case, over whether the default indeed occurred during this period. The respondent asserts that the default date was August 2, 2019, which predates the Section 10A moratorium period. This amended default date, places the present case outside the protective scope of Section 10A. As such, the ratio of Plus Corporate Ventures to this case does not apply.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda) vs C. Shivakumar Reddy on 4 August, 2021

43. In determining the validity of the amended date of default, it is crucial to examine the evidence relied upon by the respondent. It is seen that RBI as the regulatory authority during the inspection of the bank found that compliance with the conditions laid down in the sanction letters were not met and hence the CD was ineligible for restructuring. Accordingly, due to non- compliance the extent sanction letter dated 17.03.2020 became void ab-initio and the same was not tenable in the eyes of law. Banks have to mandatorily comply with the guidelines of the RBI in this regard. Therefore, the date of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 139 of 2024 -29- NPA became 01.11.2019 and the original date of default would be 02.08.2019 i.e., 90 days prior the date of NPA as per RBI IRAC Guidelines. The amended date of 02.08.2019 is also supported by records from the National E- Governance Services Limited (NESL) database, which confirms the occurrence of a default prior to the COVID-19 moratorium period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 99 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next