The appeal challenges the NCLAT's decision which reversed the NCLT's order. The NCLT had previously ruled that the respondent's application under Section 9 of the IBC was not maintainable due to the lack of prior consent from the Central Government, as required under Section 16G of the Tea Act, 1953, given that the management of the appellant's tea gardens had been taken over by the Central Government. The NCLAT overturned this, leading to the present appeal by the original respondent (Duncans Industries Ltd.).
Duncans Industries Ltd. (the appellant) owns and manages 14 tea gardens, with the Central Government having taken control of 7 of them via a notification dated 2016-01-28 under Section 16E of the Tea Act, 1953. A. J. Agrochem (the respondent) is an operational creditor who supplied pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides to Duncans Industries. The respondent claimed that Rs. 41,55,500/- was due and payable by the appellant. The respondent initiated proceedings against the appellant before the NCLT under Section 9 of the IBC. The appellant opposed the proceedings, arguing that Section 16G(1)(c) of the Tea Act requires the Central Government's consent for winding up or appointment of a receiver when the management of a tea unit has been taken over by the Central
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Central Government issued a notification…
The Division Bench of the High Court of…
The appeal challenges the NCLAT's decision which reversed the NCLT's order. The NCLT had previously ruled that the respondent's application under Section 9 of the IBC was not maintainable due to the lack of prior consent from the Central Government, as required under Section 16G of the Tea Act, 1953, given that the management of the appellant's tea gardens had been taken over by the Central Government. The NCLAT overturned this, leading to the present appeal by the original respondent (Duncans Industries Ltd.).
Duncans Industries Ltd. (the appellant) owns and manages 14 tea gardens, with the Central Government having taken control of 7 of them via a notification dated 2016-01-28 under Section 16E of the Tea Act, 1953. A. J. Agrochem (the respondent) is an operational creditor who supplied pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides to Duncans Industries. The respondent claimed that Rs. 41,55,500/- was due and payable by the appellant. The respondent initiated proceedings against the appellant before the NCLT under Section 9 of the IBC. The appellant opposed the proceedings, arguing that Section 16G(1)(c) of the Tea Act requires the Central Government's consent for winding up or appointment of a receiver when the management of a tea unit has been taken over by the Central
…The Central Government issued a notification…
The Division Bench of the High Court of…