Stay granted does not lead to an automatic revival of Company Petition which had already been closed by NCLT
- Blog|News|Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 28 July, 2021
Latest from Taxmann
Case details: Binay Kumar Singhania Resolution Professional, In re - [2021] 128 taxmann.com 334 (NCLAT- New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- A.I.S. Cheema | Chairperson and DR. Alok Srivastava | Technical Member.
- Dhanajaya Sud, Aditya Gauri and Naresh Kumar Agarwala, Advs. for the Appellant.
Facts of the Case
In the given case, the appellant was appointed as Resolution Professional (RP) in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The CIRP started and appellant-Resolution Professional took all necessary steps in time as required under the procedure in IBC.
Thereafter, one ex-director of corporate debtor moved Appellate Tribunal in an appeal against the admission of the application under section 7 of the code. However, the Appellate Tribunal set aside an order of admission which had been passed by Adjudicating Authority.
Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27-1-2020, closed proceedings against the corporate debtor and the Financial creditor bank appealed against the said order before Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court passed orders staying orders of Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the financial creditor bank sought resumption of CIRP and extension of the CIRP period.
NCLAT Held
However, the Adjudicating Authority declined the prayer sought, observing that stay granted does not lead to an automatic revival of Company Petition which had already been closed by Adjudicating Authority. Thus, without restoration of the Company Petition which was closed by Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27-1-2020, CIRP could not have continued.
Case Review
-
- State Bank of India v. Genegrow Commercial (P.) Ltd. [2021] 128 taxmann.com 333 (NCLT – Kol.) (para 10) affirmed.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- State Bank of India v. Genegrow Commercial (P.) Ltd. [2020] 118 taxmann.com 8 (NCLT – Kol.) (para 1)
- Bijay Kumar Agarwal v. State Bank of India[2020] 118 taxmann.com 48 (NCL – AT) (para 2).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
