LATEST NEWS ON INSOLVENCY LAW
LATEST CASE LAWS
It was submitted that the issues involved in these writ petitions were similar and akin to those involved in other petitions pending in this Court questioning the validity of Sections 95(1), 96(1), 97(5), 99(1), 99(2), 99(4), 99(5), 99(6) and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, wherein notices have been issued with interim orders.
In the meanwhile, petitioner(s) shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose of any of their assets or legal rights or beneficial interest therein; and the Resolution Professional shall not proceed with filling of the report. If the r...
Vyomesh Shah v. Union of India and Others
August 4, 2022
REED 2022 SC 08531
In the present case, the amount of the Corporate Debtor was declared NPA on 1st December 2008. By a letter dated 7th February, 2011, written well within three years, the Corporate Debtor acknowledged its liability and proposed a settlement. This was followed by several requests of extension of time to make payment and revised settlements. On 6th April, 2013, the Corporate Debtor sought extension of time to pay Rs.239,88,27,673 outstanding as on 31st March 2013. On 19th April, 2013, the Corporate Debtor made payment of Rs.17,50,00,000/-. On 1st July, 2013, the Corporate Debtor ac...
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Tulip Star Hotels Limited and Others
July 31, 2022
REED 2022 SC 08501
The petitioner had not stated full facts before the High Court and the record of the case reveals that while CIRP was going on, Sri Veeramachaneni Rama Mohan Rao, the then Managing Director of the respondent No.2, i.e., M/s. SVSVS Projects (Private) Limited on 9.O4.2O21 had submitted to Bank of Maharashtra a One Time Settlement (OTS) for settlement of loan account for a sum of Rs.26,29,04,544/- and physically went to the Stressed Assets Management Branch, Hyderabad. However, the offer was not accepted by the Bank of Maharashtra and this fact itself reveals that the petitioner wa...
Veeramachaneni Rama Mohan Rao v. Bank of Maharashtra and Another
March 22, 2022
REED 2022 TS 03602
It was very much clear that the parties were not in a harmonious relationship and rather the Appellant –Director had initiated multiple litigations which also involved, the some of the transactions captured in this case. The Debit Notes so sent by the CD/Respondent to the Appellant/OC were bearing an acknowledgement. The Appellate Tribunal was not in a position to examine whether it was forged or not forged. It can only be done by the Trial Court/ Civil Court.
It apparently looked astonishing how a firm will keep mum from 2016 to 2018 when such huge amounts were due from the CD ...
Oyster Steel and Iron Private Limited v. Laxmi Foils Private Limited