Category: I B C

IBC 2016 – HELD inclined to give chance to the respondent No.1 in the given facts of the case but would not like the proceedings to drag on under the pretext of the OTS given by the respondent No.1., as it would be the objective of the Court to have a quick resolution with the aspect of insolvency or revival. if the OTS is not accepted, the appellant will be free to declare the results of the e-voting qua all the proposals.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. RAGHAVENDRAN — Appellant Vs. C. RAJA JOHN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil…

IBC, 2016 – S 5(24) – ‘related party’ – ‘related party’ regarding an individual includes someone who is a relative of the individual or a relative of the individual’s spouse – Additionally, if an individual is a director of a private or public company and, along with relatives, holds more than two percent of the company’s share capital or paid-up share capital, that company is considered a ‘related party.’ – The explanation also specifies that both maternal and paternal uncles fall under the definition of ‘related party.’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers – This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant – In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. — Appellant Vs. MUKUL KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(24) – ‘related party’ – if an individual is a director of a private or public company and, along with relatives, holds more than two percent of the company’s share capital or paid-up share capital, that company is considered a ‘related party.’ – The explanation also specifies that both maternal and paternal uncles fall under the definition of ‘related party.’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

HELD the enactment of section 142A of the Customs Act does confer or create a first charge on the dues ‘payable’ under the Customs Act, notwithstanding provisions under any Central Act, but not in cases covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and the Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and the Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 201

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) — Appellant Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND…

Greater inconvenience is likely to be caused by passing any interim order of constitution of CoC in relation to the corporate debtor as a whole; and may cause irreparable injury to the home buyers – This Court are not inclined to alter the directions in the order impugned as regards the projects other than Eco Village-II.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIABULLS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAM KISHORE ARORA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 30(2), 52 and 53 – In terms of Section 52 of the Code, a secured creditor in liquidation proceedings has the right to relinquish its security interest to the liquidation estate and receive proceeds from the sale of assets by the liquidator in the manner specified under Section 53 of the Code.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LTD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MR. DINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and…

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 164(2)(b) – Insolvency Resolution Process – Unless a categorical finding was recorded in the competent forum as regards any such default and unless specific order disqualifying the resolution applicant as director because of such default came into existence, it could not have been taken by way of any process of assumption that the appellant-resolution applicant was disqualified

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.K. RAJAGOPALAN — Appellant Vs. DR. PERIASAMY PALANI GOUNDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.