AA Empowered To Remove The Liquidator: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: CA V. Venkata Sivakumar v IDBI Bank Limited & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 269/2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the Adjudicating Authority has the power to remove the Liquidator. The Bench held that no Liquidator has any personal rights to continue in Liquidation and the Adjudicating Authority can order for replacement of the Liquidator, recording sufficient reasons as per Law. “Further, since the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, is vested with the power, to `appoint a Liquidator’, under Section 33 and 34 of the I & B Code, 2016. It is by the virtue of the Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, that an ‘Adjudicating Authority’, who also, has the power, to remove the `Liquidator’.”

NCLAT Delhi Sets Aside CCI Order Giving Clean Chit To DLF, Remands Matter To CCI For Fresh Consideration

Case Title: Amit Mittal v DLF Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: COMPETITION APPEAL (AT) NO.82 OF 2018

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member), has set aside the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") giving clean chit to DLF and its subsidiary in allegations of abuse of dominant position. The CCI order was based on a supplementary report submitted by the Director General. The Bench held that CCI can only direct further investigation in a case of closure and not where DG has submitted report showing contravention of Competition Act 2002 by party(s).

NCLT

Unregistered Partnership Firm Cannot Initiate Insolvency Proceedings Under IBC: NCLT Kochi

Case Title: The Bangalore Sales Corporation v Sark Spice Products Pvt Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IBC)/37/KOB/2022.

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench, comprising of Shri. P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri. Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has held that an unregistered Partnership Firm cannot institute insolvency proceedings under IBC. The Bench observed that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 bars the unregistered partnership firm or any of the partners of said unregistered firm to file any suit against any third parties. The word “court” is defined in Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the same “Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. As per this definition this Tribunal also comes under the purview of court. The proceeding before the Tribunal is a suit attracts section 69(2) of Partnership Act 1932.