<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (11) TMI 676 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761690</link>
    <description>The Karnataka HC allowed an appeal challenging a Single Judge&#039;s order regarding the maintainability of a petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The court held that the NCLT Registrar&#039;s function of receiving and registering applications under Section 95 is purely ministerial and administrative, not adjudicatory. The Registrar cannot examine the merits or maintainability of petitions at the filing stage, as this would constitute judicial function beyond their authority. The court distinguished between ministerial acts (receiving petitions) and adjudicatory functions (examining merits), citing Supreme Court precedents. The adjudicatory process only commences after the resolution professional submits a recommendatory report to the NCLT. The automatic interim moratorium resulting from filing does not constitute abuse of process, as litigants are entitled to employ all legal remedies available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 676 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761690</link>
      <description>The Karnataka HC allowed an appeal challenging a Single Judge&#039;s order regarding the maintainability of a petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The court held that the NCLT Registrar&#039;s function of receiving and registering applications under Section 95 is purely ministerial and administrative, not adjudicatory. The Registrar cannot examine the merits or maintainability of petitions at the filing stage, as this would constitute judicial function beyond their authority. The court distinguished between ministerial acts (receiving petitions) and adjudicatory functions (examining merits), citing Supreme Court precedents. The adjudicatory process only commences after the resolution professional submits a recommendatory report to the NCLT. The automatic interim moratorium resulting from filing does not constitute abuse of process, as litigants are entitled to employ all legal remedies available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>