Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)
Avil Menzes vs Ministry Of Coal Through Its Secretary on 23 October, 2024 cites

Assam Sillimanite Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991

18. Another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been referred to by the Respondent No. 1 & 2 is Assam Sillimanite Ltd. Vs Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 692 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act which enabled acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of the Assam Sillimanite Ltd. in respect of its refractory plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the validity of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act by holding that there is a direct and rational nexus between the objective of the enactment and the principles contained in Article 39 of the Constitution. The present is, however, not a case where the constitutional validity of IBC has been put on the test and hence this case law also does not come to the rescue of the Respondent No.1&2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd vs Reliance Industries Ltd on 7 May, 2010

19. Yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been relied upon by Respondent No. 1 & 2 is Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the public trust doctrine "is part of Indian law" and that it "is thus the duty of the Government to provide complete protection to the natural resources as a trustee of the people at large." This ratio also does not render any assistance to Respondent No. 1 & 2 since the Appellant has nowhere questioned the purpose and objective of AMCC or denied the obligation cast on the Corporate Debtor to take necessary measures for fulfilling mine-closure Page 17 of 31 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 944 of 2024 responsibilities. This is also clearly evidenced by the fact that AMCC has been made part of CIRP costs during the CIRP period to make the Corporate Debtor fulfil these obligations while running as a going concern.
Supreme Court of India Cites 69 - Cited by 110 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Abhilash Lal on 15 November, 2019

25. This brings us to the second tier of defence raised by the Respondent No. 1 & 2. The argument canvassed is that CCO acquired powers to operate the Escrow Account to perform duties relating to monitoring of mine-closure activities from Rule 10A of the Colliery Control Rules, 2004 and Section 18 and 20 of MMDR Act. It has been contended that MMDR Act is a special law having been enacted for a specific purpose, IBC cannot claim to have overriding effect over public duty which is cast upon the CCO by MMDR Act. Respondent No. 1 & 2 have relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Abhilash Lal (2020) 13 SCC 234 wherein it was held that Section 238 of IBC cannot override the public duty and rights of a third party in controlling and regulating its own properties. In that case, the resolution plan was becoming an impediment to Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's independent plans to ensure that public health amenities are developed in the manner it chooses. The present facts of the case are clearly distinguishable since the dispute is not on how the AMCC is to be used but whether the Respondent No. 1 & 2 can recover the pre-CIRP AMCC dues in respect of a Corporate Page 22 of 31 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 944 of 2024 Debtor which has been admitted into the rigours of insolvency resolution under IBC. This case law is therefore not applicable in the facts of the present matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 141 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next