NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 133, 230, 231, 232 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND RULE 3(2), 8 OF THE COMPANIES (COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENTS AND AMALGAMATIONS) RULES, 2016

  

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Powerscreen Media Private Limited And Ors Vs. Meru Minerals Private Limited, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0074

NCLT allowed the application filed by the Petitioner Company, under Section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 r/w the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 for the purpose of the approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation, as contemplated between the Companies and its Shareholders by way of Amalgamation of Transferor Companies with the Transferee Company. While allowing the application NCLT held that he First Motion Application stands allowed giving liberty to the Applicant Companies to file Second Motion Petition with a direction that the Applicant Companies shall make specific prayer for sending notices to the Central Government, Registrar of Companies, Income Tax Authorities and the Official Liquidator by disclosing the PAN numbers of all the Applicant Companies in the title of the Second Motion Petition so as to provide the proper opportunity to the Income Tax Department to respond and also filing an affidavit that there is no other Sectoral Regulator in respect of the Applicant Companies and also to the effect that the Scheme does not involve any corporate debt restructuring & buy back of shares.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 5(8), 7, 9, 10, 12(A), 60(5) OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND REGULATION 30(A)(4), 30(A)(5) INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CORPORATE PERSONS) REGULATIONS, 2016

Image
           NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Piyush Patel Vs. Sunil Kumar Agarwal (Irp) And Ors, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0069 NCLT allowed the application filed by the Applicant, under section 60(5) of the IB Code. While allowing the application NCLT held that "By relying on the Judgments of this Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that the Appellant, who claims to be a Financial Creditor, however, claims made by it, is not a Financial Debt, it is reiterated that in the marketing agreements and subsequent correspondent exchanged between the Appellant and the Respondent, no way it is mentioned that the amount paid by the Appellant to be repayable along with in...
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 3(11), 3(12), 3(6), 4, 5(7), 5(8), 5(21), 7, 7(1), 7(2), 7(5), 7(5)(A), 9, 10, 14, 14(2), 14(3), 15, 17, 18, 31(1), 33, 238 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND RULE 4, 4(3) OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016

Image
           NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Power Finance Corporation Limited Vs. South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0087 NCLT allowed the petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), praying for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate debtor on grounds of its inability to liquidate its financial debt. While allowing the petition NCLT held that this Adjudicating Authority finds that as the corporate debtor was under obligation to pay the interest and principal amount in terms of Facility Agreement i...
Read more