Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Calcutta High Court reviews jurisdiction under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in CP 1 of 2016 case The Calcutta High Court considered the jurisdiction to proceed with CP 1 of 2016 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in a case involving ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Calcutta High Court reviews jurisdiction under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in CP 1 of 2016 case
The Calcutta High Court considered the jurisdiction to proceed with CP 1 of 2016 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in a case involving multiple parties, including home buyers and companies like Avani Projects and Infrastructures Limited. The court heard arguments from different representatives, with one side advocating for the court to retain jurisdiction and the other suggesting NCLT should handle the case. The State Bank of India supported its position in a supplementary affidavit. The court adjourned the hearing on various applications to resolve the jurisdictional issue related to CP 1 of 2016, with further proceedings scheduled for 21st June 2019.
Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to proceed with CP 1 of 2016 under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
The judgment by Mr. Arindam Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court involved multiple parties, including 99 home buyers claiming transactions with Avani Projects and Infrastructures Limited. The main argument centered around the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with CP 1 of 2016 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, representing Reliance Commercial Private Limited and Reliance Home Finance Private Limited, emphasized that the court should retain jurisdiction over the matter. He clarified that he was not seeking a stay on the NCLT's order or challenging its jurisdiction under the IBC. On the other hand, Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, representing Himalayan Endeavor Limited, referred to a Division Bench Judgment and suggested that the court should allow NCLT to proceed with the case. The State Bank of India also filed a supplementary affidavit, supporting its position. The hearing of various applications, including CA 92 of 2019 and CA 103 of 2019, was adjourned until the jurisdictional issue related to CP 1 of 2016 was resolved. All applications, along with CP 1 of 2016, were scheduled to appear before the court on 21st June 2019 for further proceedings.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
