Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.56 seconds)Section 30 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs Spade Financial Services Limited on 1 February, 2021
12. The case of the Appellant is that Kalpatru Advisory Services Pvt.
Ltd. (KASPL) is a voting member of the Committee of Creditors. His
submission is that KASPL holds 16% shareholding of the Corporate Debtor
and Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira was Director of Corporate Debtor from 01.01.2010
to 19.02.2019 and is also Director of KASPL. Learned counsel for the
Appellant has relied on Section 5(24)(d) to submit that KASPL is a related
party. According to own case of the Appellant, Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira who
was Director of the Corporate Debtor as well as KASPL resigned on
19.02.2019. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Phoenix ARC vs. Spade Financial Services,
(2021) 3 SCC 475". However, there is no material on record that resignation
of Respondent No.3 was with intend to be member of the Committee of
Creditors. There being no material or pleading to come to the conclusion that
KASPL still continues to be related party by virtue of Section 5(24)(d) whereas
after 19.02.2019, Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira does not continue as Director of the
Corporate Debtor and CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on
11.08.2020, more than a year after such resignation. With regard to 16%
shareholding of KASPL, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 has
submitted that to attract Section 5(24)(j), the KASPL had to control more than
Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1162 of 2023, 1178 of 2023 and 1179 of 2023
-17-
20% of voting rights in the corporate debtor on account of ownership or a
voting agreement. It has only 16% shareholding in the Corporate Debtor,
hence, cannot be held as related party as per Section 5(24)(j). The submission
of the Appellant objecting participation of KASPL on the basis of its
shareholding which in view of the definition clause 5(24)(j) does not fulfils it
to be related party, hence, participation of KASPL in voting cannot be faulted.
As noted above, transfer of shareholding in favour of the Vira Group could not
materialise.
Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016
Amit Goel vs Ms. Piyush Shelters India Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 18 January, 2022
18. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on judgment
of this Tribunal in "Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 700 of 2021, Amit Goel
vs. Piyush Shelters India Pvt. Ltd." to support his submission that there
cannot be differentiation in treatment of homebuyers. In the case of Amit
Goel Resolution Plan was approved which provided for allotment of unit to
those homebuyers whose claim was filed within time and admitted and with
regard to those homebuyers who did not file their claim within time were
proposed to get 10% of their booked amount after verification. The Resolution
Plan was challenged on various grounds. The ground to challenge the
Resolution Plan has been noticed in Para 6 of the judgment, which is to the
following effect:
Vinayak Road Carriers vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 4 July, 2019
"144. What is important to note is that when one reads
the abovementioned judgment, it is a majority of 66%
of the Committee of Creditors who has exercised the
discretion vested in it under the Code in this particular
manner, which has then correctly not been disturbed
by the NCLT and NCLAT. Far from helping Shri Sibal's
client, the principle that is applied in such a case is that
ultimately it is the commercial wisdom of the requisite
majority of the Committee of Creditors that must
prevail on the facts of any given case, which would
include distribution in the manner suggested in Orissa
Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1162 of 2023, 1178 of 2023 and 1179 of 2023
-34-
Manganese (supra).