SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Electrosteel Castings Limited – Respondent
Departmental Enquiry Report
Regarding Missing Case File
(Telangana State Subordinate Judiciary)
Introduction
This report is prepared in relation to the missing case file pertaining to [Case Name/Number], which was under the jurisdiction of [Court/Department]. The enquiry was initiated to ascertain the circumstances leading to the disappearance of the case file and to recommend appropriate action.
Details of the Case File
Case Name/Number: [Name/Number]
Date of Filing: [Date]
Court/Branch: [Court/Branch]
Responsible Officer/Official: [Name of the Officer/Official]
Allegation
It is alleged that the case file has gone missing from the custody of [Department/Official], which has caused inconvenience and has raised concerns regarding the security and management of official records.
Procedure Followed
The enquiry was conducted as per the prescribed departmental procedures, including:
Collection of statements from witnesses and staff members (!)
Evidence Collected
The evidence gathered includes:
Any relevant communication or instructions related to the case file (!)
Findings
Based on the enquiry, the following findings are made:
The responsible officer(s) failed to follow proper record management and security protocols (!)
Conclusion and Recommendations
The enquiry concludes that:
The department should review and strengthen the existing record-keeping and security protocols to ensure such incidents do not recur (!)
Remarks
It is recommended that the competent authority take appropriate disciplinary and administrative measures based on this report and ensure strict adherence to record management policies in future.
Declaration
This enquiry report is prepared after a thorough and impartial investigation, adhering to the principles of fairness and natural justice.
Date: [Date]
Place: [Location]
Signature of the Enquiry Officer: [Name & Designation]
Seal/Stamp: [if applicable]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the financial interactions between esl, ecl, and srei (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. insolvency resolution process and its implications on the debt (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. nclat's findings on the guarantee issue (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. arguments for and against ecl's status as a guarantor (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. analysis of the legal definition of a guarantee (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court's reasoning on the nature of clause 2.2 (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. conclusion dismissing the appeal (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
(i) INTRODUCTION
1. This appeal under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Code’) calls in question the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 24.01.2024 by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), whereby, the NCLAT affirmed the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Code.
(ii) ISSUE
2. The central issue arising for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the interpretation of Clause 2.2 of Deed of Undertaking dated 27.07.2011 executed between SREI Infrastr
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Golden Chariot Airport and Others
A Deed of Undertaking that lacks a clear promise to discharge a debtor’s obligation does not constitute a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Balance sheet acknowledgement of guarantee liability as 'contingent' extends limitation under IBC Sec.7, as guarantor's co-extensive liability not truly contingent; unaccepted sanction proposals do n....
Approval of a resolution plan does not discharge a corporate guarantor's liability under a guarantee, affirming that guarantees remain enforceable even after such approval.
Resolution plan approving sponsor's unsecured shortfall undertaking does not extinguish principal borrower's secured debt or corporate guarantee liability; lenders retain Section 7 rights against the....
The court emphasized that a corporate debtor's restructuring proposal must receive proper written approval from all debenture holders as stipulated in the Debenture Trust Deed, failing which the init....
Corporate guarantees constitute financial debt under IBC Section 5(8); challenges on timing, non-disclosure, verification, and stamping rejected; tribunals' perverse findings warrant Supreme Court in....
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.