NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 7, 12, 12(2), 19, 19(3), 66, 70 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND REGULATION 3(1) OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CORPORATE PERSONS) REGULATIONS, 2016

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Union Bank Of India And Ors Vs. Pks Limited And Ors, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0138

NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant for removal of the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor for having failed to conduct himself in an independent manner being an erstwhile employee of the Financial Creditor and for taking biased decisions at the behest of the Financial Creditor. While allowing the application NCLT held that having heard the parties and having gone through their pleadings placed on record and after considering the Judgments placed on record, we are of the considered view that since admittedly the RP had been in the gainful employment of the Financial Creditor for 34 years, and had been dealing with the accounts of the Corporate Debtor which facts were not known to the Corporate Debtor till recently, the bias attributed to the RP need not be proved in so many words. If the Corporate Debtor has noticed it from the actions of the RP, it can be presumed that the Corporate Debtor has suffered it at the hands of the RP. So this is a fit case, for replacement of RP as prayed for and deserve consideration. However we make it clear that the replaced RP is no way disqualified nor found ineligible for appointment as insolvency professional.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 7(A), 8, 8(1), 9, 9(3)(B), 9(5), 14(1), 14(2), 14(3), 15, 17, 18, 20, 21OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND REGULATION 6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CORPORATE PERSON) REGULATIONS, 2016

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com ADECCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0001 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'code') read with Rules 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor. While allowing the application NCLT held that therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and...
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 248(1), 248(6), 252, 252(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND RULE 7,9 OF THE COMPANIES (REMOVAL OF NAMES OF COMPANIES FROM THE REGISTER OF COMPANIES) RULES, 2016

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Surya Landcon Private Limited Vs. Registrar Of Companies And Ors, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0110 NCLT allowed the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 against the order of striking off the name of the company passed by the respondent under section 248 (1) of the Act read with Rule 7 of Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016. While allowing the petition NCLT held that the Appellant has submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation since incorporation and therefore could not be termed as defunct company as per section 252 of the Act....
Read more