LATEST NEWS ON BANKRUPTCY LAW
LATEST CASE LAWS
It was difficult to comprehend as to why it would have been drawn for Rs.1,50,000/( Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) only when it is the case of the appellant that the advance amount paid was Rs.3,50,000/( Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) and had to get back the entire advance paid. The natural conduct would have been to secure for the full amount if that was the situation. Keeping all these aspects in view, the case put forth by the respondent does not satisfy the requirement of rebuttal even if tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Therefore, in t...
Triyambak S. Hegde v. Sripad
September 22, 2021
REED 2021 SC 09008
The Apex Court has recalled the suo motu order of April 27, 2021, which had extended with effect from March 14, 2021 the limitation period for filing of cases in view of the COVID second wave. The Court observed that the suo motu extension of limitation period will stand withdrawn with effect from 2 October 2021. The Supreme Court disposed the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the following directions:
(I) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance perio...
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
September 22, 2021
REED 2021 SC 09011
Irretrievable injury, has to be such a circumstance which would make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself, if he ultimately succeeds. This will have to be decisively established and it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that there would be no possibility whatsoever of the recovery of the amount from the beneficiary, by way of restitution. Commitment of banks must be honoured free from interference by the courts and it is only in exceptional cases, that is to say, in case of fraud or in a case where irretrievable injustice would be done if bank guaran...
SKS Power Generation (Chattisgarh)Limited v. Canara Bank
August 10, 2021
REED 2021 Bom 08560
The impugned order shows that learned DRT has considered violation of Rule 9(3) in correct perspective. It has not considered the effect of 15% of the bid amount by way of a cheque which is not permissible. It has also not considered the effect issuing a confirmation letter dated 31.08.18 confirming payment of 15% when admittedly that cheque was presented for encashment on 4.9.18 and was encashed on 4.9.18 thus confirming the auction without receipt of payment of 25% payment in full on 31.8.18 or even on 1.9.18. DRT did not notice these fundamental defects in payment of 25% whic...
Jagmohan Singh Arora and Others v. India Bulls Commercial Credits Limited and Others