Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Bank of India's Applications Rejected; RP's Actions Upheld</h1> <h3>Bank of India Versus Naren Sheth, RP of Jaybharat Textiles and Real Estate Limited and Ors.</h3> Bank of India Versus Naren Sheth, RP of Jaybharat Textiles and Real Estate Limited and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Dissolution of the wrongfully constituted Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the Corporate Debtor.2. Removal and replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP).3. Validity of the claims admitted by the RP, particularly those of unsecured financial creditors.4. Determination of whether unsecured financial creditors are related parties to the Corporate Debtor.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Dissolution of the Wrongfully Constituted CoC:The applicant, Bank of India, contended that the RP admitted claims of unsecured financial creditors without proper verification, reducing the voting share of secured financial creditors. The applicant alleged that the unsecured financial creditors were related parties to the Corporate Debtor, which led to a biased CoC. The Tribunal, however, found that the RP had followed the provisions and regulations of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 meticulously. The Tribunal held that the RP had correctly computed the claims of both secured and unsecured financial creditors, including interest, based on financial contracts and financial statements. The Tribunal concluded that the CoC was constituted correctly, and there was no need for reconstitution.2. Removal and Replacement of the RP:The applicant sought the removal of the current RP and the appointment of a new RP, alleging bias and failure to discharge duties independently. The Tribunal noted that the RP had complied with all the relevant provisions and regulations. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant had not provided any substantial evidence to support the allegations against the RP. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the request for the RP's removal and replacement, stating that the RP's actions were correct in law.3. Validity of Claims Admitted by the RP:The applicant argued that the RP admitted claims amounting to Rs. 1587 crores against a principal amount of Rs. 249.5 crores, mainly comprising interest, which was not provided for in the financial statements. The Tribunal examined the financial statements and found that both secured and unsecured financial creditors' claims included interest based on loan agreements and financial statements. The Tribunal emphasized that the same methodology was used for both categories of creditors, ensuring parity. The Tribunal held that the RP had correctly admitted the claims, including interest, and there was no reason for the applicant to be aggrieved.4. Determination of Related Parties:The applicant claimed that the unsecured financial creditors were related parties to the Corporate Debtor, citing a due diligence report. The RP countered by presenting another independent report, which concluded that the unsecured financial creditors were not related parties. The Tribunal reviewed both reports and agreed with the RP's report, which elaborately examined the facts and legal provisions. The Tribunal held that the unsecured financial creditors were not related parties to the Corporate Debtor, as they did not meet the criteria under Section 5(24A) of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal also noted that past relationships alone did not suffice to classify them as related parties unless it was shown that they severed their related party status to dominate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).Conclusion:The Tribunal rejected the applications filed by the applicant, Bank of India, on all issues. The Tribunal upheld the actions of the RP, stating that the claims were correctly admitted, the CoC was properly constituted, and the unsecured financial creditors were not related parties. The Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's contentions and dismissed the applications, affirming the RP's conduct and decisions throughout the CIRP.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found