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

2023 Supreme(Del) 1945

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Tata Steel Bsl Limited – Appellant
Versus
Venus Recruiter Private Limited – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
V.P. Singh, Ms. Anindita Roy Chawdhury, Ms. Vatsala Rai and Ms. Simran Bhat, Advocates, for the Appellant in LPA 37/2021 AND C.M. NOS. 2664/2021, 2665/2021 & 2666/2021 AND LPA 43/2021 & LPA 43/2021 and C.M. Nos. 3196/2021 & 3198/2021.
Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms. Vasudha and Ms. Aarushi Tiku, Advocates, for the Respondent No.1 in LPA 37/2021 AND C.M. NOS. 2664/2021, 2665/2021 & 2666/2021 AND LPA 43/2021.
Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General with Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Amit Gupta, Rishav Dubey, Danish Faraz Khan, Saurabh Tripathi, Sahag Garg and Aakarsh Srivastava, Advocates, for the Respondent in LPA 37/2021 AND C.M. NOS. 2664/2021, 2665/2021 & 2666/2021 AND LPA 43/2021 & LPA 43/2021 and C.M. Nos. 3196/2021 & 3198/2021.
Manmeet Singh, Ms. Nishtha Chaturvedi and Ms. Shatakshi Tripathi, Advocates, for the Respondent No.3 in LPA 37/2021 AND C.M. NOS. 2664/2021, 2665/2021 & 2666/2021 AND LPA 43/2021 & for the Respondent No.4 in LPA 43/2021 and C.M. Nos. 3196/2021 & 3198/2021.
Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Rishi Agarwal, Parminder Singh and Pranjit Bhattacharya, Advocates, for the Respondent No.1 in LPA 43/2021 and C.M. Nos. 3196/2021 & 3198/2021.

Table of Content
1. appeals filed concerning the cirp process. (Para 1 , 2)
2. key questions regarding continuation of avoidance applications. (Para 3)
3. court’s analysis of maintainability of writ petitions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. rp's authority ends post cirp conclusion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. need for timelines in determining avoidance applications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. examining reliance on a specific ibc report. (Para 13)
7. arguments from tata steel regarding efficacy of nclt. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
8. union of india’s stance on jurisdictional matters. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. concurrence of rp with tata steel and union. (Para 28)
10. counterarguments from venus recruiters on jurisdiction. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
11. the overarching purpose of the ibc. (Para 36)
12. nature and purpose of avoidable transactions. (Para 42 , 46)
13. final observations on the handling of avoidance applications. (Para 74 , 79 , 90)

JUDGMENT

1. The present Letters Patent Appeals, being LPA No. 37 & 43 of 2021 have been filed by Tata Steel BSL Ltd. (hereafter, "TSBL") and the Union of India (hereafter, "UoI") (collectively, "Appellants") respectively, impugning the Judgment

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