The State Bank of India (SBI) filed appeals against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench) on June 25, 2019, and January 10, 2020. These orders pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 294-295 of 2020, arising out of orders in CA(IB) No. 87/CTB/2019, IA(IB) No. 21/CTB/2019, and TP No. 40/CTB/2019, which originated from CP(IB) No. 24/KB/2018. The Adjudicating Authority had observed that SBI's actions were based on Reserve Bank of India (RBI) instructions without proper authorization from the Central Government, referencing Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the Dharani Sugar & Chemicals Limited case. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application filed by SBI under Section 7 of the
…State Bank of India (SBI) initiated insolvency proceedings against Visa Steel Ltd. based on RBI directives. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Cuttack Bench) dismissed SBI's application under Section 7 of the IBC, citing a lack of proper authorization from the Central Government for the RBI's directives, referencing the Dharani Sugars case. SBI appealed this decision to the NCLAT. Key facts include: (1) RBI issued circulars and letters directing banks to initiate insolvency proceedings against specific defaulters, including Visa Steel Ltd.; (2) SBI acted on these directives; (3) The Adjudicating Authority deemed these directives invalid without Central Government authorization; (4) The Dharani Sugars case influenced the Adjudicating Authority's decision; (5) Visa Steel
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The State Bank of India (SBI) filed appeals against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench) on June 25, 2019, and January 10, 2020. These orders pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 294-295 of 2020, arising out of orders in CA(IB) No. 87/CTB/2019, IA(IB) No. 21/CTB/2019, and TP No. 40/CTB/2019, which originated from CP(IB) No. 24/KB/2018. The Adjudicating Authority had observed that SBI's actions were based on Reserve Bank of India (RBI) instructions without proper authorization from the Central Government, referencing Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the Dharani Sugar & Chemicals Limited case. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application filed by SBI under Section 7 of the
…State Bank of India (SBI) initiated insolvency proceedings against Visa Steel Ltd. based on RBI directives. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Cuttack Bench) dismissed SBI's application under Section 7 of the IBC, citing a lack of proper authorization from the Central Government for the RBI's directives, referencing the Dharani Sugars case. SBI appealed this decision to the NCLAT. Key facts include: (1) RBI issued circulars and letters directing banks to initiate insolvency proceedings against specific defaulters, including Visa Steel Ltd.; (2) SBI acted on these directives; (3) The Adjudicating Authority deemed these directives invalid without Central Government authorization; (4) The Dharani Sugars case influenced the Adjudicating Authority's decision; (5) Visa Steel
…The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…