Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)
Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs Sumit Binani & Ors on 30 October, 2018 cites

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs Canara Bank & Ors on 20 July, 2018

15. Admittedly, R-9 was not a party to the decision rendered by this Appellate Tribunal on 20.07.2018 in the matter of 'SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and Ors.' in which it was held that the Appellant could not be treated to be a 'related party' in relation to DCHL. However, the fact remains that the issue of Appellant being in control of DCHL by virtue of holding more than 20 per cent shares and thereby attracting ineligibility as a 'related party' was involved in DCHL matter. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 184 of 2018 -23- Determination of the question as to whether the Appellant held 24.6% shareholding in DCHL at the relevant time thereby attracting ineligibility in terms of provisions of Section 29A of I&B Code is relevant notwithstanding the fact that R-9 was not a party to the DCHL matter. The finding recorded in DCHL matter in regard to status of Appellant as a 'related party' qua DCHL stands dislodged in appeal. The edifice upon which rested the plea of R-9 in regard to alleged ineligibility of Appellant stands demolished. It is not in controversy that the judgment rendered by this Appellate Tribunal in appeal stands unassailed and has attained finality. In view of the same the finding in appeal that the Appellant was not a related party of DCHL would be binding though it may liberally not fall within the contours of 'Res Judicata'.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mrs. Jamuna Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh 121 ... on 3 November, 2017

The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with doctrines of 'issue estoppel'/ 'estoppel by judgment' and 'res judicata' in 'Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Rajnath Dubey and Ors.' reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 49 held that 'estoppel by judgment' operates as a bar which precludes the parties after final judgment to re-agitate and re-litigate the same cause of action or ground of defense or any fact determined by the judgment. The principle of estoppel operates as a bar against the party and not the court. Nothing comes in the way of a competent court to decide a question of law differently if it is so warranted. However, the issues of fact, once finally determined, will stare at the parties and bind them. Erroneous determination of a pure question of law in a previous judgment will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceeding for different property though between the same parties.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2807 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Numetal Ltd vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors on 7 September, 2018

"2. The provisions for insolvency resolution and liquidation of a corporate person in the Code did not restrict or bar any person from submitting a resolution plan or participating in the acquisition process of the assets of a company at the time of liquidation. Concerns have been raised that persons who, with their misconduct contributed to defaults of companies or are otherwise undesirable, may misuse this situation due to lack of prohibition or restrictions to participate in the resolution or liquidation process, and gain or regain control of the corporate debtor. This may undermine the processes laid down in the Code as the unscrupulous person would be seen to be rewarded at the expense of creditors. In addition, in order to check that the undesirable persons who may have submitted their resolution plans in the absence of such a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 184 of 2018 -15- provision, responsibility is also being entrusted on the committee of creditors to give a reasonable period to repay overdue amounts and become eligible."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 33 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1