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

        Tribunal confirms Corporate Debtor's admission into CIRP under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

        Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Shareholder and suspended Director of Dadheech Infrastructures Private Limited Versus SREI Equipment Finance Ltd., Mr. Soumendra Poddar Interim Resolution Professional of Dadheech Infrastructure Private Limited

        Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Shareholder and suspended Director of Dadheech Infrastructures Private Limited Versus SREI Equipment Finance Ltd., Mr. Soumendra ... Issues Involved:
        1. Maintainability of the main petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
        2. Alleged denial of natural justice to the Corporate Debtor.
        3. Establishment of debt and default by the Corporate Debtor.
        4. Applicability of the Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Ltd. decision.
        5. Impact of the Financial Creditor being under CIRP on its ability to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

        Summary:

        1. Maintainability of the Main Petition:
        The appellant, the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, challenged the maintainability of the main petition on the grounds of discrepancies in the Power of Attorney (PoA). The main petition was initially signed by Mr. Projoy Chatterjee based on a PoA dated 31.03.2021. When the Financial Creditor entered CIRP, the PoA signed by the erstwhile management was argued to be non-maintainable. The Administrator appointed Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha with a new PoA to re-sign and re-verify the main petition, which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the institution of the main petition and continuance of the proceedings were done by duly authorized persons at all times, thus the main petition was maintainable.

        2. Alleged Denial of Natural Justice:
        The appellant contended that the main petition was not heard by the Adjudicating Authority, denying them the opportunity to defend their cause. However, the Tribunal noted that several hearings took place, and the Adjudicating Authority had heard both parties on merits in respect of the IAs as well as the main petition. The Adjudicating Authority had clubbed together the main petition and IA 1184/2022 for conjoint disposal, and the appellant was given the opportunity to file pleadings, which they availed. The Tribunal found no denial of justice or fair opportunity of hearing.

        3. Establishment of Debt and Default:
        The Adjudicating Authority found that the debt due from the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor and the default in payment were established. The Corporate Debtor's plea that the Financial Creditor had obtained signatures on blank papers and inserted fraudulent entries was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the findings that the debt and default above the threshold limit were established, justifying the admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP.

        4. Applicability of Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Ltd.:
        The appellant argued that the admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP runs contrary to the Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. decision. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified that the Vidarbha judgment was limited to the facts of that case and was not to be applied as a general rule. The Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the Section 7 application.

        5. Impact of Financial Creditor Being Under CIRP:
        The appellant argued that since the Financial Creditor was under CIRP, it was barred from initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Manish Kumar vs. Union of India, which held that Section 11(a) of IBC does not hinder the resolution of a Corporate Debtor and allows it to undertake recovery actions against its own debtors. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no sufficient and plausible grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The main petition was maintainable, there was no denial of natural justice, debt and default were established, and the admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP was justified.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found