Skip to main content

NCLT has sole Jurisdiction in handling matters of Insolvency of Corporate Debtor

In M/s.kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. K.bharathi And Ors, the petition has been filed under the writ of Mandamus directing the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (NCLT) to dispose of the application filed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (the Petitioner) in MA No.538 of 2019 in CP No. 710 of 2018 under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The NCLT vide its order dated March 26, 2021 observed that IBC is time-bound. The complexities in this matter and pending litigations before various courts have been a major impediment in conducting corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”). Since there is an ongoing matter in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, It instructed all the parties to thereby for direction as whether the NCLT can proceed according to the IBC rules and regulations.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the NCLT has “sought to pass the buck”. Noted that the NCLT irreverently has stated that NCLT working on time bound basis might not apply to the court proceedings. It should adhere to the propriety in conformity with the superior authority which the current court exercises.

Further noted, that the NCLT should decide whether the matter should be decided or not or if there lies any injunction. In either case, it should confine itself to its area of specialisation and deal with the respective matter without waiting for any advice from this court, which is anyway not obliged to extend.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more