Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.64 seconds)Idbi Bank Limited vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited on 20 July, 2023
47. The Respondent has referred to the decision in IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Zee
Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 939 of
2023, to argue that since the first invocation of the corporate guarantee by
IDBI Bank was made on 05.03.2021- during the one-year bar period under
Section 10A of the IBC- the Appellant was permanently barred from initiating
insolvency proceedings, even at a later stage. The Respondent further claimed
that the second invocation made in December 2022 was not a fresh or
separate demand, but merely a continuation of the earlier invocation. On this
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1046 of 2023
-27-
basis, it was submitted that the present application under Section 7 is also
barred.
Manmohan Singh Jain vs State Bank Of India on 22 November, 2021
The Appellant also relies on 'Manmohan Singh
Jain v. State Bank of India', [2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 5983], where at para
47 this Tribunal held that even if the date of default is not explicitly stated in
Form-1, the application is not defective if sufficient documentary evidence is
placed on record establishing default.
Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda) vs C. Shivakumar Reddy on 4 August, 2021
In Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) 10 SCC
330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that repeated defaults and
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1046 of 2023
-25-
acknowledgments under a continuing obligation can constitute fresh causes
of action.
Syndicate Bank vs Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors on 10 April, 2006
In this respect, the Respondent places reliance on 'Syndicate Bank
v. Channaveerappa Beleri' [(2006) 11 SCC 506], paras 9-13, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to sue a guarantor accrues only
upon invocation, and not on the date of borrower's NPA.
Section 129 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Anuj Kumar Tyagi on 17 December, 2015
In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Anuj Kumar (supra) the Delhi High
Court also explained that where a financial obligation is still unpaid, and
where the contract is still in force- especially in the case of continuing
guarantees or loan agreements- the creditor does not have to act only at the
time of the first default. The creditor can act later, based on a new or repeated
failure to pay. Each time the borrower or guarantor fails to meet their
responsibility under the contract, the creditor gets a new right to sue.
Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008
In this regard,
reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bachhaj
Nahar v. Nilima Mandal' [(2008) 17 SCC 491], paras 12-13, and 'Arikala
Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy' [(2014) 5 SCC 312], para 15.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1046 of 2023
Arikala Narasa Reddy vs Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari on 17 April, 2014
In this regard,
reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bachhaj
Nahar v. Nilima Mandal' [(2008) 17 SCC 491], paras 12-13, and 'Arikala
Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy' [(2014) 5 SCC 312], para 15.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1046 of 2023
Nufuture Digital (India) Limited vs Axis Trustee Services Limited on 9 May, 2023
9. The Appellant further relies upon the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal
in 'NuFuture Digital (India) Ltd. v. Axis Trustee Services Ltd., Co.' [Company
Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 444/2023], wherein at para 20 it was held that even if
the original invocation fell within the 10A bar period, a fresh invocation post
10A with subsisting default is legally permissible.
1