Skip to main content

NCLT: Act/Code will prevail over Rules and Regulation

In Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. vs Resolution Professional of Unimark Remedies Ltd., the application was filed by the applicant before the NCLT, Mumbai in the ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Unimark Remedies Ltd..

The applicant's objection was against the decision of the COC in refusing to open the envelop of the Resolution Plan sent by the Applicant and to return the same to the Applicant without considering the resolution plan on its merits.

The Respondent defended their decision stating that pursuant to section 25(2)(h) of the code, the RP had issued advertisement on 08.06.2018 inviting EOI from prospective resolution Applicants. The last date for submission of EOI was extended thrice by announcement made on the website of the Corporate Debtor that is on 28.06.2018, 19.07.2018 and 17.08.2018. It is further submitted that the request for resolution plans (RFRP) inviting resolution plans from Resolution Applicants was published on the website of the Corporate Debtor on 16.07.2018 with the cut-off date for submission of the Resolution Plan as 14.08.2018. Subsequently, the cut-off date was extended to 14.09.2018, and thereafter to 01.10.2018 and further extended to 31.10.2018. It is submitted that four EOI were received from  Resolution Applicants and two Resolution Plans were received within the cut- off date of 31.10.2018. The Applicant herein has not submitted the Resolution Plan on or before 31.10.2018, however the Applicant has submitted the Resolution Plan on 12.12.2018 which is beyond the cut-off date. It is further submitted that the 270 days of CIRP will expire on 29.12.2018.

The Tribunal accepting the argument of the Applicant held that the Resolution Applicant had approached the RP with a proposal at the 12th hour but certainly before accepting or finalization of any Resolution Plan and keeping in view the very object of the Code, when there is a clash/ conflict between the Regulations and the Code, the object of the Code is paramount and not the Regulations which are formed only for the just implementation of the Code. Purely on the basis of technicalities, the rejection of Resolution Plan even without looking into its merits, is certainly an act which shall go against the very spirit of the Code and may even result in a huge loss to the Company. Any Regulation which does not anticipate such a situation and if the same comes in the way of proper justification and implementation of the principles of the Code, the same need not be considered nor can be treated as an impediment in the implementation of the Code.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more