Disposed

In the matter of v. S. Texmills Pvt. Ltd. Ia 222 of 2021 & Ia No. 99,449 & 507-2021 in Cp(Ib) 299 of 2018

NCLT17 Mar 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the Tribunal disposed of multiple adjunct applications in CP(IB) 299 of 2018. It allowed withdrawal of applications filed by Chamaria Fashions against Canara Bank. It disposed of an asset purchase application as infructuous. It accepted withdrawal of a liquidation application by Canara Bank. It referred a claim for litigation expenses to IBBI.

What did the court decide?

Applications were allowed to be withdrawn, disposed as infructuous, or referred to IBBI for adjudication of expenses.

In the matter of v. S. Texmills Pvt. Ltd. Ia 222 of 2021… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | NCLT (2022)

¶1

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD COURT - 2

¶2

Item No.115 – IA 222 of 2020 Item No.116 – IA 507 of 2021 Item No.117 – IA 449 of 2021 Item No.118 – IA 99 of 2021 In CP(IB) 299 of 2018

¶3

Order under Section 7 IBC

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF: Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd ........Applicant V/s V S Texmills Pvt Ltd ........Respondent Order delivered on ..17/03/2022

¶5

Coram:

¶6

Dr.Deepti Mukesh, Hon’ble Member(J) Ajai Das Mehrotra, Hon’ble Member(T)

¶7

PRESENT:

¶8

For the Chamaria Fashions Pvt. Ltd. : Advocate, Mr. Nilesh Udarnani. For the erstwhile IRP : CA, Mr. Kiran Shah. For the Canara Bank : Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Samal. : Advocate, Mr. Urvesh Gor.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

IA 222 of 2020

¶11

Application filed by M/s Chamaria Fashions Pvt. Ltd. seeking direction against Canara Bank. Mr. Nilesh for the Applicant states that the Canara Bank has submitted No Dues Certificate and he has been instructed to apply for withdrawal.

¶12

Accordingly, application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of.

¶13

IA 507 of 2021

¶14

Application filed by M/s Chamaria Fashions Pvt. Ltd. seeking direction against Canara Bank. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that this is another application seeking similar prayer which were sought in IA 222/2020. Since, IA 222/2020 is withdrawn by the applicant, this application has become infructuous.

¶15

Accordingly, application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

IA 449 of 2021

¶17

Application filed under Section 33 of the IBC, 2016 for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor by one of the major stakeholders, Canara Bank. Learned counsel

¶18

Abhishek

¶19

appearing for Canara Bank states that in view of the entire payment made as per the terms of resolution plan he has been instructed by Canara Bank to apply for withdrawal.

¶20

Accordingly, application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of.

¶21

IA 99 of 2021

¶22

Application filed by erstwhile RP seeking direction against Successful Resolution Applicant. The RP is claiming the expenses which were incurred for litigation to be paid to erstwhile RP after the CIRP was completed. The learned counsel for the Successful Resolution Applicant states that they have filed reply and they are objecting to the amount claimed as Rs. 3 Lakhs being spent on litigation which is exorbitant. Learned PCA for erstwhile RP, Mr. Shah states that they have supplied invoices raised by the respective counsels and all accounts with them, to the resolution applicant, for reimbursement of expenses.

¶23

We send the matter to IBBI to adjudicate the claim raised by the erstwhile RP, after hearing both the sides, and further to quantify the admissible amount and to file report within three weeks.

List on 06.05.2022.

-sd-

-sd-

AJAI DAS MEHROTRA MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶28

DR. DEEPTI MUKESH MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶29

Abhishek

In the matter of v. S. Texmills Pvt. Ltd. Ia 222 of 2021 & Ia No. 99,449 & 507-2021 in Cp(Ib) 299 of 2018

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In the matter of v. S. Texmills Pvt. Ltd. Ia 222 of 2021 & Ia No. 99,449 & 507-2021 in Cp(Ib) 299 of 2018

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases