Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)Section 14 in The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Vasudevan vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2022
Therefore, the High Court, by an order dated
12-9-2019 [State of Karnataka v. Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints
Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2463] adjourned the matter to 23-9-
2019 and granted a stay of operation of the direction contained in
the impugned order [Vasudevan v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC
OnLine NCLT 681] of the Tribunal. Interim stay was necessitated in
view of a contempt application moved by the resolution professional
before the NCLT against the Government of Karnataka for their
failure to execute supplement lease deeds.
K. Sashidhar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 5 February, 2019
20. When we look into observation of Adjudicating Authority in
paragraph 15, it is clear that Adjudicating Authority has relied on its earlier
order dated 08.04.2024 passed in IA No.461(AHM)/2022, where RP has
been directed to appear before the GIDC. Due to the above reason, the
Adjudicating Authority has remitted the Resolution Plan back to the CoC
for reconsideration. Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor is correct
in its submission that Adjudicating Authority has not returned any finding
that Resolution Plan submitted by SRA was not in compliance of sub-
section (2) of Section 30. No such shortcomings in the Resolution Plan has
been pointed out, due to which the Resolution Plan suffers from any
infirmity as required by Section 30, sub-section (2). The law is well settled,
the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph-17 has already noticed the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court K. Sashidhar vs. Indian
Overseas Bank and Ors., where it was observed that Adjudicating
Authority has ample power to remit the Resolution Plan for reconsideration
by the CoC when there is violation of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the IBC.
There can be no quarrel to the above proposition that Resolution Plan can
be sent back for reconsideration of the CoC, if there is violation of Section
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1103 & 1084 of 2024 18
30, sub-section (2). Any violation of Section 30, sub-section (2) gives ample
jurisdiction to NCLT to interfere with the decision of CoC approving the
Resolution Plan or remit the Plan for making it compliant with Section 30,
sub-section (2). But in the present case, there is no finding by the
Adjudicating Authority with regard to non-complaint of Resolution Plan as
per Section 30, sub-section (2). Without recording a finding of non-
compliant of Section 30, sub-section (2), the Resolution Plan could not have
been returned back to the CoC for reconsideration. Hence, we are of the
view that order passed by Adjudicating Authority on 08.04.2024 in IA 159
of 2020 is also influenced by its earlier order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority on 08.04.2024 in IA No.461 of 2022. We have already taken the
view that order passed by Adjudicating Authority in IA No.461(AHM)/2022
is unsustainable. We, thus, are of the view that order passed by NCLT in
IA No. 159/NCLT/AHM/2020 is also unsustainable.
State Of Karnataka vs Tiffins Barytes Asbestos And Paints ... on 20 January, 2020
3.15. It is against the said ad interim order [State of
Karnataka v. Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd., 2019 SCC
OnLine Kar 2463] granted by the High Court that the resolution
applicant, the resolution professional and the Committee of
Creditors have come up with the present appeals."