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

2023 Supreme(SC) 234

M. R. SHAH, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Modi Rubber Limited – Appellant
Versus
Continental Carbon India Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atishi Dipankar, AOR, Mr. A.K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Amartya Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Amartya Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Ms. Shipra Jain, Adv. Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Viddusshi, Adv. Mr. Zubin Mammen John, Adv. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv., Ms. Riya Kalra, Adv., Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv., Mr. E.R. Kumar, Adv. Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Maithreya Shetty, Adv. Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR, Mr. Atul Shanker Mathur, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar, Adv. For M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Atishi Dipankar, AOR, Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kant, Adv., Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv., Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pranav Tanwar, Adv. Mr. Divyam Agarwal, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Arun Aggarwal, AOR Ms. Anshika Agarwal, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR, Mr. Upender Thakur, Adv., Mr. Yatin Grover, Adv. Ms. Nandini Tomar, Adv. Mr. A. V. Rangam, AOR Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. AAG Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Aastik Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shahshank Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Mr. Prashant Singh II, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2017 - (To be treated as the lead matter)

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4854 of 2011 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – Continental Carbon India Ltd. (unsecured creditor) and has held that the original writ petitioner is an unsecured creditor and has the option not to accept the scaled down value of its dues and may wait till the scheme of rehabilitation of the appellant company [company before the BIFR under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “SICA”)] has worked itself out with an option to recover its debt post such rehabilitation, the original respondent No. 1 – Modi Rubber Ltd. has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2017.

Civil


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