Supreme Court refuses to hear SREI Equipment Finance's Plea

The Supreme Court by its single judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (in short

By: :  Ajay Singh
Update: 2023-01-28 06:45 GMT

Supreme Court refuses to hear SREI Equipment Finance's Plea The Supreme Court by its single judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (in short NCLAT) to hear SREI Equipment Finance's appeal against the Tribunal's order that permitted the resolution professional of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure to implement the sale of its 'valuable' land in favor...


Supreme Court refuses to hear SREI Equipment Finance's Plea

The Supreme Court by its single judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (in short NCLAT) to hear SREI Equipment Finance's appeal against the Tribunal's order that permitted the resolution professional of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure to implement the sale of its 'valuable' land in favor of Kalpataru Properties while insolvency process is going on.

The Apex Court was not inclined to hinder with the NCLAT's order. SREI Equipment had challenged the NCLAT's 3rd January, 2023 order and the Tripura High Court's September order that ruled in favor of Kalpataru Properties.

A majority of lenders to the twin SREI group companies were undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.

NABARD a nodal agency that channelises government subsidy toward agricultural finance to regional rural banks and commercial banks, has a verified claim of Rs. 883 crore, which lenders will set aside. It filed a petition with the National Company Law Tribunal objecting to the distribution of money from the sale of SREI Equipment Finance and SREI Infrastructure Finance.

The appellate tribunal of the bankruptcy court had rejected an application from Adisri Commercial, the holding company of SREI Equipment, challenging the admission of the subsidiary for bankruptcy proceedings.

The NCLAT order had stated, "we are of the considered view that the grounds cited to explain the 321 days' refiling delay when viewed against the parameters of timely, effective and efficient resolution as envisaged in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, fall hopelessly short of meeting the desirable standards of being adequate and sufficient."

Tags:    

By: - Ajay Singh

Similar News