Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 14, 2024Case LawsAT
The appeal sought to quash an Expression of Interest (EoI) for a new contractor due to an alleged error in an Assignment Agreement. The court found that the EoI did not breach the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Facility Use Agreement showed the appellant had operational rights but not ownership. The court ruled that the Corporate Debtor was not in possession, so Section 14(1)(d) did not apply. The Adjudicating Authority correctly upheld the EoI. The Corporate Debtor's non-payment of facility charges led to default and SARFAESI Act proceedings. The appeal was dismissed by NCLAT.
The appeal sought to quash an Expression of Interest (EoI) for a new contractor due to an alleged error in an Assignment Agreement. The court found that the EoI did not breach the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Facility Use Agreement showed the appellant had operational rights but not ownership. The court ruled that the Corporate Debtor was not in possession, so Section 14(1)(d) did not apply. The Adjudicating Authority correctly upheld the EoI. The Corporate Debtor's non-payment of facility charges led to default and SARFAESI Act proceedings. The appeal was dismissed by NCLAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
