BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Kalyani Transco – Appellant
Versus
Bhushan Power And Steel Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of appeals filed against nclt's judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the resolution process and parties involved. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments presented by various stakeholders regarding the ibc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 20) |
| 4. judicial scrutiny must ensure compliance with mandatory provisions of the ibc. (Para 13) |
| 5. observations on compliance and judicial scrutiny in resolution plans. (Para 32 , 33 , 39 , 47) |
| 6. the court determines that failure to comply with ibc provisions warrants rejection of the plan. (Para 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 7. conclusion and orders regarding the resolution plan. (Para 85 , 86 , 87) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This batch of Appeals stems from the common impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (For short NCLAT), New Delhi in the Company Appeals filed by the various parties.
(i) Civil Appeal No. 1808 of 2020 has been filed by the Kalyani Transco, an operational creditor of the Corporate Debtor (For short CD) M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (For short BPSL) challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Others
Arcelormittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others
ESSAR Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.