Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)

State Bank Of India vs Videocon Industries Ltd & Ors on 4 July, 2019

80. Henceforward Summumbonum, is that the UK / USA courts have dealt with the process of consolidation along with the jurisdiction of the Authority by pronouncing that equity and fairness ought to be a yardstick by lifting the corporate veil. Consolidation is to be utilized as a mechanism to maximise the value of financially stressed group of companies. Economic benefit ought to be the sole BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH MA 1306/2018, MA 1416/2018, MA 393/2019, MA 115/2019, MA 1574/2019, MA 774 /2019, MA 778/2019, MA 1583/2018 Page 45 of 52 purpose and for that a preliminary searching enquiry is suggested which would yield benefit to stakeholders by off-setting any harm, if inflicted, if not consolidated. On due reading of all these judgements, one proposition of law emerges that the motion of „consolidation‟ depends upon the facts and circumstances of each debtor/debtors. It is appropriate and suitable to give a ruling at this occasion that there is no single yardstick or measurement on the basis of which a motion of consolidation can or cannot be approved. With humility, this Bench herein below sets-out a list of examples, based upon reading the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1069 of 2020 Page 27 of 38 history of „group insolvency‟, so that the presence of them can lead to a decisive conclusion of triggering of „consolidation‟ of Insolvency process. Undisputedly, and also laid down by the courts, before ordering consolidation, a preliminary searching inquiry be ensured that whether consolidation yields benefits to stakeholders by offsetting the harm if not consolidated.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mamatha vs Amb Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 30 November, 2018

In the matter of Mrs. Mamatha versus AMB Infrabuild Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1069 of 2020 Page 30 of 38 Private Limited and Ors. (supra), the NCLAT has held that the developer and the land owner should be treated jointly for the purpose of initiation of CIRP against them. Hence, the Appellant remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for admission of the case after notice to the parties. The important point to note in this matter is that an application for initiation of CIRP jointly against „developer‟ and the „landowners‟ was filed, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. In the instant appeal the initiation of CIRP has been ordered only against the Corporate Debtor (developer) but at this stage there is neither any application for initiation of CIRP against the landowner/ landholder nor there is any order regarding initiation of the CIRP against the landowning company M/s Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1