• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
search-icon

Top Stories

HomeNewsIBC Cases
22 Nov 2022 5:00 AM GMT

SIDBI cannot take Possession of Corporate Debtor's Assets Which are not Subject Matter of Litigation: NCLT

By: Nilima Pathak
SIDBI cannot take Possession of Corporate Debtors Assets Which are not Subject Matter of Litigation: NCLT

SIDBI cannot take Possession of Corporate Debtor's Assets Which are not Subject Matter of Litigation: NCLT The Resolution Professional stated that the respondents had wrongly taken possession of two vehicles The Chandigarh bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), the financial creditor cannot take possession...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans


SIDBI cannot take Possession of Corporate Debtor's Assets Which are not Subject Matter of Litigation: NCLT

The Resolution Professional stated that the respondents had wrongly taken possession of two vehicles

The Chandigarh bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), the financial creditor cannot take possession of the corporate debtor's assets, which are not the subject matter of litigation to facilitate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The application was filed by Resolution Professional (RP) seeking direction against the respondent to pay a car rental of Rs.15,000 per month/per car or part thereof, up to the date of delivery of the vehicles to the applicant for personal purpose use.

It further directed the respondent to hand over the custody of the cars belonging to the corporate debtor to the RP under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

The RP stated that the respondents were the suspended directors of the suspended Board of Directors of the corporate debtor. The cars, Toyota Innova and Ssangyong Rexton, registered in the name of the corporate debtor, were in the possession of the respondents. But despite repeated requests, they were not returning the vehicles.

The bench comprising Harnam Singh Thakur (judicial member) and Subrata Kumar Dash (technical member) observed that under IBC, the RP was mandated to take possession and preserve and protect the assets of the corporate debtor. Thus, the two vehicles should have been in his custody immediately after the initiation of the CIRP.

The tribunal held that only those properties on which the corporate debtor must "exercise rights in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings", the RP could not bring a claim before the NCLT. But in the present case, there was no dispute over the ownership of the vehicles.

Thus, while allowing the application, NCLT directed the respondent to hand over the possession of the vehicles to the RP within 15 days.

Nilima Pathak

Nilima Pathak

Next Story
TAGS:
  • #National Company Law Tribunal
  • #Small Industries Development Bank of India
  • #Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • #Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X