The petitioner filed a writ petition. The respondent/Bank sought to contend that a decision was made by the competent authority regarding the petitioner's OTS proposal, and that this decision was to be communicated to the petitioner. However, the material presented by the respondent/Bank indicated that no such decision had been taken and communicated. The petitioner's OTS offer of ₹37 crore was pending, but the respondent/Bank proposed a sale to ARCs after the writ petition was filed. The respondent/Bank intended to transfer/assign the debt owed by M/s JVR Forging Limited, whose promoter and Ex-director was the petitioner.
The petitioner made an OTS proposal to the respondent/Bank. The respondent/Bank claimed to have made a decision on the OTS proposal, but the court found no evidence of this. The petitioner's OTS offer was for ₹37 crore. The respondent/Bank proposed a sale to ARCs after the writ petition was filed. The respondent/Bank intended to transfer/assign the debt owed by M/s JVR Forging Limited, whose promoter and Ex-director was the petitioner. A resolution applicant had previously quoted ₹30.25 crore, and the committee of creditors, consisting solely of the respondent/Bank, had approved the proposal. The IRP had approached the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, for approval of the said proposal. The respondent/Bank was proposing to assign the debt to ARCs without obtaining permission
…Sign in to view the parties.
Court passed a…
Notification dt.25.11.20…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The petitioner filed a writ petition. The respondent/Bank sought to contend that a decision was made by the competent authority regarding the petitioner's OTS proposal, and that this decision was to be communicated to the petitioner. However, the material presented by the respondent/Bank indicated that no such decision had been taken and communicated. The petitioner's OTS offer of ₹37 crore was pending, but the respondent/Bank proposed a sale to ARCs after the writ petition was filed. The respondent/Bank intended to transfer/assign the debt owed by M/s JVR Forging Limited, whose promoter and Ex-director was the petitioner.
The petitioner made an OTS proposal to the respondent/Bank. The respondent/Bank claimed to have made a decision on the OTS proposal, but the court found no evidence of this. The petitioner's OTS offer was for ₹37 crore. The respondent/Bank proposed a sale to ARCs after the writ petition was filed. The respondent/Bank intended to transfer/assign the debt owed by M/s JVR Forging Limited, whose promoter and Ex-director was the petitioner. A resolution applicant had previously quoted ₹30.25 crore, and the committee of creditors, consisting solely of the respondent/Bank, had approved the proposal. The IRP had approached the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, for approval of the said proposal. The respondent/Bank was proposing to assign the debt to ARCs without obtaining permission
…Court passed a…
Notification dt.25.11.20…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.