TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal directs petitioner to seek NCLAT guidance on company petition admission.</h1> <h3>Mr. Piyush Periwal Versus Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) and another</h3> The Tribunal disposed of the application for injunction, emphasizing that the petitioner should seek further directions from the NCLAT as the admission ... Seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the operations of the applicant company - seeking reimbursement of entire cost of the CIRP proceeding to the applicant company - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal expects that the respondents would maintain status-quo in respect of the IRP proceedings. As the main company petition was remanded back to the Hon'ble NCLAT for fresh disposal in accordance with law, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to approach the Hon'ble NCLAT for any further directions in the above matter and accordingly the application stands disposed of with the above observations. Even otherwise, the order of admission of the company petition has not attained finality and, therefore, no interim orders as prayed for needs to be passed today. Application disposed off. Issues Involved:Application for injunction restraining interference in company operations and reimbursement of CIRP proceeding costs.Analysis:The applicant filed an application seeking an injunction to prevent interference in the company's operations and to compel respondent No.1 to reimburse the entire cost of the CIRP proceedings. Both parties were represented by their respective advocates. The Tribunal heard the submissions and noted that the Committee of Creditors (COC) had only ratified the expenses of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in a recent meeting. The respondents assured the Tribunal of their awareness of a Supreme Court order and its legal implications.The Tribunal, considering the submissions made, expected the respondents to maintain the status quo regarding the IRP proceedings. Given that the main company petition was remanded to the Hon'ble NCLAT for fresh disposal, the Tribunal opined that the petitioner should seek further directions from the NCLAT. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the application should be disposed of with the observations made. It was emphasized that since the order of admission of the company petition was not final, no interim orders were deemed necessary at that time.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the application with the aforementioned observations, indicating that the petitioner should approach the NCLAT for any additional directions in the matter, as the admission order of the company petition had not yet achieved finality.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
