Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SMT. BIDISHA BANERJEE, SMT. MADHU SINHA, JJ
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Maheswary Ispat Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the insolvency case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding liquidation costs (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. details of liquidation cost contributions (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. nclat rulings on liquidator's fees (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. court's analysis of liquidator's role (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. court's decision on liquidator's fees (Para 30) |
| 7. conclusion and order of the court (Para 31 , 32) |
ORDER
1. This Court congregated through a hybrid mode.
3. This application has been preferred by Liquidator CA Santanu Brahma, hereinafter referred to as “Applicant” against Indian Bank, hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 1” and State Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 2” praying for a direction upon the Respondents to make a payment of Rs. 1,87,76,133/- jointly towards the additional Liquidation Cost including the Liquidator’s Fees in adherence to the provisions of Regulation 21A read with Regulation 2(ea) and 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) regulations, 2016.
4. Tata Capital Ltd. (erstwhile Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.) preferred a company petition under Section 433, 434 and 439
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
