Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
R.F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph, JJ
Tata Steel BSL Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the letters patent appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. essential questions regarding continuation of avoidance applications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. roles and limits of the resolution professional (rp) when cirp concludes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. arguments from tata steel on the rp's obligations and timelines. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. arguments from the union of india on jurisdiction of nclt. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. further arguments by the union of india on rp's role post-cirp. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. arguments from venus recruiters about procedural changes. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. venus recruiters' position on the ibc's framework. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. discussion of the purpose behind avoidance applications under the ibc. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 10. analysis of the ibc's structure related to avoidance transactions. (Para 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 46) |
| 11. final assertion on the independence of avoidance applications. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 12. conclusion and directive to nclt to proceed with avoidance applications. (Para 90 , 91) |
1. The present Letters Patent Appeals, being LPA No. 37 & 43 of 2021 have been filed by Tata Steel BSL Ltd. (hereafte
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
