Tuesday, 23 November 2021

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Private Limited Vs. Nisus Finance And Investment Managers LLP - Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules

SCI (24.07.2017) In Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Private Limited Vs. Nisus Finance And Investment Managers LLP .[Civil Appeal No. 9279 of 2017] held that; - 

  • In view of Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) could not utilise the inherent power recognised by Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise before it by the parties after admission of the matter.


Excerpts of the order;

1) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties.

 

2) The present appeal raises an interesting question as to whether, in view of Rule 8 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal could utilize the inherent power recognized by Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise before it by the parties after admission of the matter.

 

3) By the impugned order dated 13.07.2017, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the inherent power could not be so utilized. According to us, prima facie this appears to be the correct position in law.

 

4) However, since all the parties are before us today, we utilize our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to put a quietus to the matter before us. We take the Consent Terms dated 28.06.2017 and 12.07.2017 entered into between the parties on record and also record the undertaking of the appellant before us to abide by the Consent Terms in toto. The appellant also undertakes to pay the sums due on or before the dates mentioned in the aforesaid Consent Terms.

 

5) With this, the present appeal is disposed of.

 

6) In view of our order made today, nothing further survives in the aforesaid appeal.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer:

The sole purpose of this post is to create awareness on the "IBC - Case Law" and to provide synopsis of the concerned case law, must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must refer to the full citation of the order & do one's own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this post.

Harpal Singh Chawla Vs. Vivek Khanna and Ors.- It is true that when a unit holder is handed over possession and a Conveyance Deed has also been executed, no claim survives of such unit holders.

  NCLAT (2024.12.17) in Harpal Singh Chawla Vs. Vivek Khanna and Ors.  [(2024) ibclaw.in 831 NCLAT, IA No.7853 of 2024 in Company Appeal (A...