Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
Bimalesh Bhardwaj & Ors vs Value Infratech Private Limited ... on 29 November, 2021 cites

Capri Global Capital Ltd vs Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd on 14 May, 2019

23. We are of the clear and firm opinion that in view of the judgment of this tribunal in Capri Global Capital Limited vs. Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. (through its Resolution Professional Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Anr. (supra), it was the RP‟s responsibility to fix financial creditors‟ claim amounts and vote shares properly and in accordance with law, moreso, when the NCLAT had already given its verdict in CA (AT)(Ins) 29 of 2020 (supra). He has been sadly remiss and found wanting in the performance of his duties as per the provisions of IBC. The hasty manner in which the items were taken up for discussion in the 2nd CoC meeting, and no action was taken to pursue the application u/s 19(2) and file an application for exclusion of time spent in judicial intervention, are stark pointers to the irresponsible handling of these issues by the RP, for which he can‟t be absolved of blame. An independent enquiry in his acts of omission and commission while carrying out the CIRP of the corporate debtor by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India can either absolve him of the allegation of his collusion with Respondent No. 4 or establish his involvement. We find that the RP did not take adequate interest in securing the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 112 of 2021 Page 23 of 28 records and account details of the Corporate Debtor and took a hasty view that in the absence of records, and disappearance of its ex-directors of the Corporate Debtor should be sent into liquidation.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chitturi Subbanna vs Kudapa Subbanna & Others on 18 December, 1964

14. The Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 has cited the judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Chittoori Subbanna vs. Kudappa Subbanna and Ors [SC 1965 2 SCR 661] and in the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 112 of 2021 Page 14 of 28 matter of Phoenix Arc (P) Ltd. vs. Spade Financial Services Limited [2021 3 SCC 475]in support of his contention. On the basis of these judgments, he has contended that if no challenge was made to the constitution of CoC and the fixing of vote share in CoC earlier, these issues cannot be raised in the appeal now.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 86 - R Dayal - Full Document

Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs Spade Financial Services Limited on 1 February, 2021

14. The Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 has cited the judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Chittoori Subbanna vs. Kudappa Subbanna and Ors [SC 1965 2 SCR 661] and in the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 112 of 2021 Page 14 of 28 matter of Phoenix Arc (P) Ltd. vs. Spade Financial Services Limited [2021 3 SCC 475]in support of his contention. On the basis of these judgments, he has contended that if no challenge was made to the constitution of CoC and the fixing of vote share in CoC earlier, these issues cannot be raised in the appeal now.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 49 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Athena Energy Ventures Pvt Ltd on 24 November, 2020

23. We are of the clear and firm opinion that in view of the judgment of this tribunal in Capri Global Capital Limited vs. Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. (through its Resolution Professional Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Anr. (supra), it was the RP‟s responsibility to fix financial creditors‟ claim amounts and vote shares properly and in accordance with law, moreso, when the NCLAT had already given its verdict in CA (AT)(Ins) 29 of 2020 (supra). He has been sadly remiss and found wanting in the performance of his duties as per the provisions of IBC. The hasty manner in which the items were taken up for discussion in the 2nd CoC meeting, and no action was taken to pursue the application u/s 19(2) and file an application for exclusion of time spent in judicial intervention, are stark pointers to the irresponsible handling of these issues by the RP, for which he can‟t be absolved of blame. An independent enquiry in his acts of omission and commission while carrying out the CIRP of the corporate debtor by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India can either absolve him of the allegation of his collusion with Respondent No. 4 or establish his involvement. We find that the RP did not take adequate interest in securing the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 112 of 2021 Page 23 of 28 records and account details of the Corporate Debtor and took a hasty view that in the absence of records, and disappearance of its ex-directors of the Corporate Debtor should be sent into liquidation.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

K. Sashidhar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 5 February, 2019

17. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has also cited the judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank [2019 SCC Online SC 257] and Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited [2021 SCC Online SC 707]. In both the judgments, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that once the Successful Resolution Plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority on the recommendation of CoC and implemented thereafter, the resolution plan achieved finality and cannot be reopened, unless the plan suffers from legal infirmity.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 66 - Cited by 188 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1