news-legal

news-legal 13

Published in news-legal Written by December 14 2018 0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
NCLAT dismisses appeal filed by Promoter and Director (‘Appellant’) of Impex Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’), challenging NCLT order wherein Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) pursuant application u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) was initiated; Takes note of Appellant’s claim that State Bank of India (‘Respondent’/ ‘SBI’) was bound to follow the statutory mandate laid vide RBI Circulars and thus application u/s 7 of Code, as preferred by SBI defeats such guidelines; Peruses Sec. 35 AA and Sec. 35 AB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which inter alia authorizes RBI to take actions for resolution of stressed assets, highlights that Circular June 13, 2017, relied on by the Appellant itself provides for initiating CIRP under the Code for certain ‘identified accounts’; Construes that RBI directions do not suggest interference with the statutory remedy of resolution process under the Code and aforesaid Circulars cannot override the provisions of the Code, which is a special enactment and a complete Code in itself; Upholds statutory right of the Creditors under the Code for initiation of CIRP and states that once the concerned Adjudicating Authority is satisfied w.r.t. (i) existence of debt and default, (ii) completeness of application, it is bound to admit the application:

Re:Impex Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd
New Delhi NCLAT
Published in news-legal Written by September 21 2018 0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
This is posted on MCA site
As you are aware the last date for filing form DIR-3 KYC without fee has expired on 15th September 2018. The process of deactivating the non-compliant DINs has since been completed and their status has been updated as ‘Deactivated due to non-filing of DIR-3 KYC’. However, the non-compliant DIN holders may file DIR-3 KYC with a fee of Rs.500 (Rupees
Five Hundred Only) from 21st September till 5th October 2018(both days inclusive) to get their DINs reactivated. From 6th October 2018 onwards, a fee of Rs.5000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) becomes payable for reactivation.

Wish something is done about revoking disqualification of Directors u/s164(2) too where disqualification are on account of promoters.
Published in news-legal Written by August 13 2018 0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
NCLT disposes of an application filed by one of the suspended Directors (‘Applicant’) of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’), seeking that the Committee of Creditors’ (‘CoC’) decision of disallowing him from participation in CoC meetings be set aside;
Published in news-legal Written by August 02 2018 1
Rate this item
(0 votes)
On July 23, 2018, the Lok Sabha passed the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2017. The amendment introduces two new sections, Section 143A and Section 148, which bolster the compensation aspect of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the provision for dishonour of cheques.
Published in news-legal Written by June 18 2018 0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
NCLT Mumbai allows Promoter (‘Resolution Applicant’), also the guarantor of a Corporate Debtor undergoing insolvency, to submit resolution plan, thereby holding the resolution plan to be eligible for due adjudication;
Published in news-legal Written by June 15 2018 1
Rate this item
(0 votes)
MCA appoints June 13, 2018 as the date on which Sections 22, 24 to 26 and Sec. 71 of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 (‘Amendment Act’) shall come into force;
The Amendment Act substitutes Sec. 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Principal Act’) which provides for maintenance of register of significant beneficial owners in a company, vide Sec. 22; Sec. 24 of the Amendment Act omits Sec. 93 of the Principal Act, per which every listed Company was required to file a return with the Registrar of Companies (‘ROC’), for intimation of change in Promoters’ stake;

Further, vide Sec. 25 of the Amendment Act, the requirement of submitting special resolution for keeping a Company’s registers, returns and other requisite documents at any place in India other than its registered office, to the ROC in advance as provided u/s 94 of the Principal Act, has been dispensed with; According to Sec. 26 of the Amendment Act, an unlisted Company may hold its Annual General Meeting at any place in India if all members consent through the prescribed modes, also amends Sec. 216 of the Principal Act by inter alia by adding beneficial owners to the list of true persons whose shareholding may be investigated: MCA
Published in news-legal Written by May 23 2018 0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
NCLAT allows interlocutory application filed by Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (‘UltraTech’), directs Resolution Professional (‘RP’) not to take any comment from one or other Resolution Applicant(s), and to ignore such step if already taken;
Published in news-legal Written by April 25 2018 0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
NCLT Ahmedabad holds second round of bids in Essar Steel India Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’) to be invalid, directs Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) and Resolution Professional (‘RP’) to relook at bids of Numetal Ltd. (‘Numetal’) and ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd. (‘ArcelorMittal’) (collectively - ‘Applicants’);  Notes that the RP had declared Applicants as ‘ineligible’ for filing the resolution plan, as per Sec. 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’); Observes that any person who is either a Promoter or in management of, or in control of the business of the Corporate Debtor and in default, is ineligible to submit a resolution plan as per Sec. 29A of the Code;  Thus opines that persons connected to ArcelorMittal (i.e. Promoters or in management of KSS Petron and Uttam Galva Steels Ltd.) are ineligible, and mere sale of shares and declassification as Promoters, after the Companies have gone into default cannot absolve them; States that in order to become eligible to bid, ArcelorMittal ought to repay overdue amounts to lenders (i.e. KSS Petron and Uttam Galva Steels Ltd.) as per Sec. 29A r/w Sec. 30 (4) and its provisos of the Code; On noting that the opportunity of repayment wasn’t granted to ArcelorMittal, holds that “The CoC and RP have not followed administrative rules as per 29 (A) (c) and 30 (4) of IBC Code”; Reprimands CoC for adhering to RP’s views without considering resolution plan submitted by the Applicants; Observes that inviting a second round of bids was “prima facie invalid”, accordingly directs the CoC and RP to revisit their decision to reject the earlier bids u/s 29A of the Code:

Ahmedabad NCLT
Published in news-legal Written by April 17 2018 0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
SEBI releases guidelines for issuance of debt securities by Real Estate Investment Trusts (‘REITs’) and Infrastructure Investment Trusts (‘InvITs’);
Page 1 of 2