Conviction Cannot Stand On Contradictory Police Testimony Without Medical Evidence: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In 1993 Rioting Case Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Criminalise Governance Decisions: Punjab & Haryana High Court Discharges Bhupinder Singh Hooda in AJL Plot Case Money Laundering Is A Continuing Offence; Even Persons Not Named In Predicate FIR Can Be Prosecuted: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Accused In ₹13.29 Crore PMLA Case Failure To Obtain Demarcation To Ascertain Location Of Boundary Wall Fatal To Injunction Suit, Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn: Himachal Pradesh High Court When Cost Of Acquisition Is Incapable Of Determination, Capital Gains Tax Cannot Arise: Gujarat High Court On Transfer Of Self-Generated Trademarks Tenant Cannot Turn Residential Portion of SCF into Commercial Workshop Without Permission: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | ‘Saved Permits’ Exempt From 140km Cap Until KSRTC Introduces Service: Kerala High Court Surplus Land Proceedings Cannot Be Reopened After Decades Through Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Two Promotional Avenues Exist, Higher Grade Must Follow the Lowest Promotional Post: Gujarat High Court Rejects Class-IV Employees’ Claim for Tradesman Pay Scale Congress MLA's Election Void For Hiding Criminal Cases: MP High Court Documents Not Foreign To Pleadings Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination: Bombay High Court Act Nowhere Mandates Certificate By Treating Doctor : Bombay High Court Revives Workman’s Compensation Claim Doctrine of Laches Is a Rule of Practice, Not a Rule of Law: Supreme Court's Comprehensive Restatement in Mizo Chiefs Case Confirmed Auction Sale Not Immune From Scrutiny on Valuation: Supreme Court Upholds Remand to DRT, Protects Bona Fide Purchaser's Rights Excise Constable Convicted for Demanding Rs. 500 Bribe Cannot Escape on 35-Year-Old Technicalities: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Modifies Sentence Considering Age Mere Acquaintance With Complainant Cannot Make a Witness 'Interested': Supreme Court Sets Clear Bar for Discrediting Prosecution Witnesses in Corruption Cases Sole Testimony Without Corroboration Unsafe For Conviction In Delayed Rape FIR: Supreme Court Acquits Four ED Cannot Freeze Entire Company Accounts When Sole Surviving FIR Involves Only Rs.42 Lakhs: Karnataka High Court Mahanta Cannot Sue in Personal Name for Math Property: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree

A‘power of attorney holder’ is competent to file an application on behalf of a financial creditor U/S 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code- SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Respondent filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 01.06.2020.  The Appellants are the suspended directors of the board of R.K. Infratel Ltd. filed an appeal which was rejected by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCLAT’). Approached Apex Court. Having two grounds – 1. A ‘power of attorney holder’ is not competent to file an application on behalf of a financial creditor and 2. the application under Section 7 filed was barred by limitation as it was not filed within three years from the date of default. It has been held Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - general authorization -  to an officer of the financial creditor by means of a power of attorney - not disentitle such officer to act as the authorized representative of the financial creditor while filing an application under Section 7 on the ground authorization was granted through a power of attorney - objection  on the maintainability of the application on this ground is untenable. Section 3 and 18 of the Limitation Act -  suit, appeal or application -  after  limitation - dismissed – even not set up as a defence - acknowledgement of liability extending limitation - before the expiration limitation period -  acknowledgement of liability – of property or right has been made in writing signed by the party - a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. Appeal Dismissed. 

D.D- September 30, 2021 

Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr. Versus Chandra Prakash Jain & Anr.     

Latest Legal News