Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.36 seconds)Tata Steel Bsl Limited & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 March, 2020
28. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant cites the order of High Court of
Delhi dated 16.3.2020 in WP (Crl.)3037/2019 and Crl. MA 39126/2019 'Tata
Steel BSL Ltd.' and Ors. Vs. 'Union of India and Ors.' wherein at paragraph
6 (by referring to Section 32A(1 of IBC as inserted by the Amendment Act) had
clearly observed that from the express language of the aforesaid provision that a
'Corporate Debtor' would not be liable for any offence committed prior to the
commencement of CIRP and the 'Corporate Debtor' would not be prosecuted if a
'Resolution Plan' was approved by the Adjudicating Authority.
Tarini Steel Company Pvt. Ltd vs Trinity Auto Components Ltd. & Anr on 9 March, 2018
41. It is represented on behalf of the 1st Respondent that erosion of
commercial considerations underlying the 'Resolution Plan' / 'offer'/constitutes
sufficient basis for withdrawal of the 'Resolution Plan' and in this connection,
on behalf of the 1st Respondent, reliance is placed of the judgement rendered by
this Tribunal in 'Tarini Steel Company Pvt. Ltd.' V. 'Trinity Auto Company
Ltd. and another' reported in 2018 SCC online NCLAT page 650.
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Solar Semiconductor Power Company ... on 25 October, 2017
5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating
Authority being a creature of statute (under IBC) is bound within the four corners
of statute and cannot travel beyond its jurisdiction prescribed under the statute
and in support of the same refers to the decisions B. Himmatlal Agrawal v.
Competition Commission of India and ors. 2018 17 SCC page 421 and
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Solar Semiconductor Power Company
(India) Private Limited and Ors. (2017)16 SCC 498. Therefore, the stand of
the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority had wrongly allowed the plea of
withdrawal of 'Resolution Plan' beyond its jurisdiction.
Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel ... vs Satish Kumar Gupta on 15 November, 2019
(a) to (e) of Section 30(2) of the 'I&B' Code relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 'Committee of Creditors' of 'Essar Steel Ltd.'
Vs. 'Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.' (Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 1999 dated
15.11.2019) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'K.Sashidhar'
Vs. 'Indian Overseas Bank' reported in 2019(3) Scale Page 6.
K. Sashidhar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 5 February, 2019
(a) to (e) of Section 30(2) of the 'I&B' Code relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 'Committee of Creditors' of 'Essar Steel Ltd.'
Vs. 'Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.' (Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 1999 dated
15.11.2019) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'K.Sashidhar'
Vs. 'Indian Overseas Bank' reported in 2019(3) Scale Page 6.
Jsw Steel Ltd vs Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Anr on 17 February, 2020
15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this
Tribunal that Section 32A of the 'I&B' Code grants immunity to a 'Resolution
Applicant' from any offences committed by the 'Corporate Debtor' prior to the
commencement of CIRP and provides certainty to the 'Successful Resolution
Applicant', that the assets of the 'Corporate Debtor' has represented would be
available in the same manner as at the time of submission of a 'Resolution Plan',
which was recognized in the judgement of this Tribunal in 'JSW Steel Limited'
Vs. 'Mahender Kumar Khandelwal and Anr.' (vide Company Appeal
(AT)(Ins.) No. 957 of 2019). Hence, because of the protection granted u/s 32A
of the Code, the withdrawal of 'Resolution Plan' by the 'Successful Resolution
Applicant' citing SFIO Investigation into the affairs of 'Corporate Debtor' is an
incorrect one and in this connection on behalf of the Appellant a reference was
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 203 of 2020 12
made to the order dated 16.03.2020 of Delhi High Court in W.P. (CRL.)
Nagabhushanammal (D) vs C.Chandikeswaralingam on 26 February, 2016
23. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the grounds raised
by the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' in CA 1816(PB) of 2019 (withdrawal
application) were raised already and rejected in CA 1252(PB) of 2019 in CP(IB)No.
101(PB) of 2017 (dismissed application) as per order dated 10.07.2019. Further,
once the matter whether on a question of fact or question of Law was decided
between the two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final neither
party will be allowed in future to canvass the said matter again and refers to the
decisions (i) Nagabhushanammal v. C. Chandikeshwaralingam (2016) 4 SCC
434 (ii) Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr.
(1999) 5SCC 590; and (iii) Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi
and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 941. When the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 203 of 2020 15
aforesaid pleas and reliefs raised by the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' in the
dismissed application, the withdrawal application' was barred by 'Res Judicata'.
Hope Plantations Ltd vs Taluk Land Board Peermade & Anr on 3 November, 1998
23. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the grounds raised
by the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' in CA 1816(PB) of 2019 (withdrawal
application) were raised already and rejected in CA 1252(PB) of 2019 in CP(IB)No.
101(PB) of 2017 (dismissed application) as per order dated 10.07.2019. Further,
once the matter whether on a question of fact or question of Law was decided
between the two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final neither
party will be allowed in future to canvass the said matter again and refers to the
decisions (i) Nagabhushanammal v. C. Chandikeshwaralingam (2016) 4 SCC
434 (ii) Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr.
(1999) 5SCC 590; and (iii) Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi
and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 941. When the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 203 of 2020 15
aforesaid pleas and reliefs raised by the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' in the
dismissed application, the withdrawal application' was barred by 'Res Judicata'.
Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960
23. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the grounds raised
by the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' in CA 1816(PB) of 2019 (withdrawal
application) were raised already and rejected in CA 1252(PB) of 2019 in CP(IB)No.
101(PB) of 2017 (dismissed application) as per order dated 10.07.2019. Further,
once the matter whether on a question of fact or question of Law was decided
between the two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final neither
party will be allowed in future to canvass the said matter again and refers to the
decisions (i) Nagabhushanammal v. C. Chandikeshwaralingam (2016) 4 SCC
434 (ii) Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr.
(1999) 5SCC 590; and (iii) Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi
and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 941. When the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 203 of 2020 15
aforesaid pleas and reliefs raised by the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' in the
dismissed application, the withdrawal application' was barred by 'Res Judicata'.