Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for MANISH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA...
MANISH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 23 : Section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 states that from the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional, the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest in the interim resolution professional. This means that the suspension of the original management (such as the board of directors) does not automatically result in the vesting of assets with the suspended management. Instead, control over the corporate debtor''''s affairs, including its assets, vests with the interim resolution professional, not with the former management. Therefore, a mere stay on the formation of a Committee of Creditors (COC) does not amount to vesting of assets with the suspended management, as the legal control and management remain with the IRP under Section 17.Checking relevance for Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) VS Abhilash Lal...
Checking relevance for Lalit Kumar Jain VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Sunil Kumar Jain VS Sundaresh Bhatt...
Checking relevance for K. R. Lakshmanan VS State Of T. N. ...
Checking relevance for Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) VS C. Shivakumar Reddy...
Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) VS C. Shivakumar Reddy - 2021 7 Supreme 29 : The formation of a Committee of Creditors (COC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, does not result in the vesting of assets with the suspended management. The moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, which comes into effect upon the insolvency commencement date, protects the corporate debtor by preventing actions against its assets and operations, but it does not vest control of assets with the former management. Instead, the resolution process is designed to separate the interests of the corporate debtor from those of its promoters or management, and to appoint a Resolution Professional to manage the affairs of the corporate debtor during the resolution process. The moratorium is protective of the corporate debtor’s assets and ensures continuity of business, not a transfer of control to the suspended management. This is consistent with the IBC’s objective of revival and continuation of the corporate debtor, not liquidation or reversion to prior management.Checking relevance for Phoenix Arc Private Limited VS Spade Financial Services Limited...
Checking relevance for The Bihar State Financial Corporation VS Parmanand Kumar Etc. ...
The Bihar State Financial Corporation VS Parmanand Kumar Etc. - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 214 : The legal document explicitly states that mere stay on the formation of a Committee of Creditors (COC) does not amount to vesting of assets with the suspended management. It clarifies that even if the Financial Corporation takes over management, control, and possession of assets under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, ownership rights remain with the promoters until the transfer of assets is completed. The document emphasizes that the Corporation does not become the owner of the property merely by taking action under Section 29, and that ownership rights in the assets are not extinguished until the transfer is finalized and vested in the transferee. This directly supports the proposition that a stay on COC formation does not result in vesting of assets with the suspended management, as the promoters retain proprietary rights until the transfer is complete.Checking relevance for Govind Prasad Todi VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi...
Govind Prasad Todi VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1791 : Under Section 17(1)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the powers of the board of directors or partners of a corporate debtor are suspended upon appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and these powers are exercised by the IRP. This suspension means that the management of the corporate debtor''''s affairs vests with the IRP, and the natural persons (such as promoters or directors) no longer have control over the company''''s assets or operations. Therefore, a mere stay on the formation of a Committee of Creditors (COC) does not amount to vesting of assets with the suspended management, as the management and control of assets are already vested in the IRP under Section 17 IBC, regardless of whether the COC has been formed. The IRP is responsible for managing the assets and affairs of the corporate debtor during the CIRP, including taking control and custody of assets, as per Section 18 IBC.Checking relevance for RNA Exotica Flat Purchasers Association VS Skyline Construction Company...
Checking relevance for Plerce Leslie And Company LTD. : Violet Ouchterionyony Wapshare VS Violet Ouchterlong Wapshare: Pierce Leslie And Company LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. VS Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner...
Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. VS Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner - 2009 7 Supreme 515 : The court held that even though symbolic custody of the sugar bags was given to the appellant bank as security for repayment of loan, the Sugar Mills continued to be the owner thereof. The sugar bags pledged with the bank remained movable property and assets of the establishment, which could be attached and sold by the Recovery Officer under Section 8B or alternative recovery modes under Section 8F. This confirms that a mere stay on the formation of a Committee of Creditors (COC) does not amount to vesting of assets with the suspended management, as ownership and control of the assets remain with the employer (management) until formally transferred under applicable insolvency laws. The statutory first charge under Section 11(2) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, operates against all debts including secured ones like pledge, reinforcing that the assets are not automatically vested in any interim body such as a suspended management.
