SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1928

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA
Brilliant Alloys Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
S. Rajagopal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR, for the Appellant; Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Adv. Mr. K. Mayilsamy, Adv. Mauriya Nihangam, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Ramamurthy, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Bharat G., Adv. Ms. Reena Pandey, AOR Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv., for the Respondent

ORDER

1. The only reason why the withdrawal was not allowed, though agreed to by the Corporate Debtor as well as the Financial Creditor -State Bank of India and the Operational Creditor-Respondent No. 3, is because Regulation 30A states that withdrawal cannot be permitted after issue of invitation for expression of interest.

2. According to us, this Regulation has to be read along with the main provision Section 12A which contains no such stipulation.

3. Accordingly, this stipulation can only be construed as directory depending on the facts of each case.

4. Accordingly, we allow the Settlement that has been entered into and annul the proceedings.

5. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top