Appellant substitution allowed: shareholder and director replaced appellant; corporate debtor transposed as second respondent represented by IRP NCLAT allowed the substitution application, permitting a shareholder and director to be substituted as appellant. The corporate debtor was ordered to be ...
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.
Appellant substitution allowed: shareholder and director replaced appellant; corporate debtor transposed as second respondent represented by IRP
NCLAT allowed the substitution application, permitting a shareholder and director to be substituted as appellant. The corporate debtor was ordered to be transposed as the second respondent and represented through its Internal Resolution Professional. The substitution application was disposed of.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Innoventive Industries v. ICICI Bank Ltd. - 2017(11) SCALE 4, an application for substitution by an aggrieved shareholder and director of the Corporate Debtor was considered. The Tribunal allowed the substitution: "Let Mr. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy be substituted as Appellant." The Corporate Debtor, Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited, is ordered to be transposed through the Interim Resolution Professional as 2nd Respondent. The application for substitution is disposed of (I.A. No. 783 of 2017). The order rests on statutory procedure for substitution under insolvency proceedings and recognition of the aggrieved person's locus to pursue the appeal on behalf of the corporate entity in light of Innoventive Industries.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
