Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (3) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (3) TMI 332 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues:
- Allegations of grave fraud by the Resolution Professional regarding public announcements and publication of Form G during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
- Compliance with Regulation 6 requirements for public announcements and publication of Form G.
- Discrepancies in the publication of public announcements in Mumbai and Udaipur.
- Respondent's contention of unclean hands by the Applicant and subsequent events post-admission of CIRP.
- Examination of documents and publications submitted by both parties.
- Allegations of non-compliance and breach of regulations.
- Request for action against the Resolution Professional and involvement of IBBI.
- Denial and counter-arguments by the Applicant regarding the Respondent's submissions.
- Examination of the legal principles and natural justice in considering the Applicant's allegations.
- Conclusion on the validity of the Applicant's claims and dismissal of the application.

Analysis:

The Applicant filed an application alleging grave fraud by the Resolution Professional in failing to comply with the requirements of public announcements and publication of Form G during the CIRP. The Applicant highlighted discrepancies in the publication of public announcements in Mumbai and Udaipur, pointing out that the RP had not followed the mandated regulations for publication. The Applicant sought action against the RP and involvement of IBBI due to the alleged breach of regulations.

In response, the Respondent argued that the Applicant had come with unclean hands and had initially presented a false case. The Respondent provided evidence of publication of public announcements in Mumbai and Udaipur, refuting the Applicant's claims of non-compliance. The Respondent emphasized that the allegations made by the Applicant were baseless and that genuine home buyers had not raised any objections to the publication.

The Bench examined the documents and publications submitted by both parties, noting the discrepancies between e-newspaper editions and physical publications. The Bench concluded that the Applicant's allegations were untenable and that multiple applications objecting to the approval of the Resolution Plan at that stage could not be entertained. The Bench dismissed the application, finding that the publication requirements had been met and the Applicant's claims lacked merit.

Overall, the judgment focused on the compliance with regulatory requirements for public announcements and publication of Form G during the CIRP, addressing the allegations of fraud and non-compliance raised by the Applicant and the Respondent's defense against these claims. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties and a conclusion that the Applicant's allegations were not substantiated.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates