#NCLAT approval

[townpostin]

Tata Steel Completes Merger with Angul Energy Limited

Integration finalized after approvals from NCLT and NCLAT. Tata Steel has successfully completed the integration of Angul Energy Limited, effective August 1st. Approved by NCLT and NCLAT, this merger involved transferring all shares and adjusting Angul Energy’s ₹210 crore equity share capital, increasing Tata Steel’s total to ₹32,583.50 crore. The merger details were communicated to NSE and BSE.…

[essarnews]

Essar Steel: A Rs 50,000 Crore Boost To Banks As SC Clears Path

The earlier NCLAT order had only given conditional approval for ArcelorMittal’s bid to acquire Essar Steel; the order had also made major modifications to the CoC’s resolution plan to settle the latter’s debts.

[newsriveting]

NCLAT approves Sapphire Media's resolution plan, acquisition of 58 Stations of Big 92.7 FM

Representational image Team News Riveting New Delhi, December 23 The Principal bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Branch, Delhi (NCLAT) on Monday dismissed the Plea filed by Radio Mirchi, Orange FM and others against NCLT judgement that approved the resolution plan of Sapphire Media Limited for the radio network Big 92.7 FM, owned by Reliance Broadcast…

[wenikhilkumar]

Suprme court affirms rights of secured creditors over pledged shares under IBC

Supreme Court Affirms Rights of Secured Creditors Over Pledged Shares Under I&B Code In a landmark decision in May 2023, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the entitlements of secured creditors within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The ruling in **M/S. Vistra ITCL (India) & Ors. v. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr.** established that secured creditors are entitled to retain the sale proceeds from shares pledged by a corporate debtor. This decision further cements the protections afforded to secured creditors under the I&B Code, providing crucial clarity in insolvency proceedings.

Case Background The case involves Amtek Auto Limited, which approached M/S. Vistra ITCL (India) & Ors. (the appellants) for a short-term loan facility of Rs. 500 crores. This facility was extended to the corporate debtor’s group companies, including M/s. Brassco Engineers Ltd. (Brassco) and M/s. WLD Investments Pvt. Ltd. (WLD). As part of this arrangement, Amtek Auto Limited pledged its equity shares in M/s. JMT Auto Ltd. (JMT) to secure the loan. When insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the I&B Code were initiated against Amtek Auto Limited, a Resolution Professional was appointed, and the approval of a Resolution Plan was sought. The appellants, as secured creditors, moved to claim their rights over the pledged shares. However, the Resolution Professional rejected their claim, and this decision was upheld by the Adjudicating Authority and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appellants, aggrieved by these decisions, escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

[bhattandjoshiassociates-blog]

Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors: Navigating Homebuyer Dissatisfaction in Insolvency Resolutions - Insights from NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case involving Mr. Girish Nalavade against Bhrugesh Amin and Ors., which serves as a pivotal examination of the principles governing the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). This ruling, while affirming the sanctity of the CoC's decision-making process, provides a detailed exploration of the scope for judicial intervention in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and addresses the constraints faced by dissatisfied stakeholders, specifically homebuyers, in influencing the outcome of insolvency proceedings. Contextualizing the Dispute The core of the dispute revolved around the dissatisfaction of a class of 77 homebuyers with the CoC-approved resolution plan for Modella Textile Industries Ltd., which was undergoing CIRP. The appellants sought to overturn the CoC's decision, advocating for either a rejection of the approved plan or a call for fresh bidding to accommodate the specific demands of the homebuyers. Legal Framework Under Scrutiny At the heart of the tribunal's examination were the principles laid out in Section 61 of the IBC, which pertains to appeals against the orders of the Adjudicating Authority (the National Company Law Tribunal, or NCLT). This section forms the basis for understanding the appellate mechanism within the IBC's architecture, offering a window into the judicial review of CIRP decisions. Understanding the Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors in Legal Scrutiny The NCLAT meticulously navigated the arguments presented, emphasizing that: "Once the CoC has approved the resolution plan by requisite majority and the same is in consonance with applicable provisions of law and nothing has come to light to show that the Resolution Professional had committed any material irregularities in the conduct of the CIRP proceedings, the same cannot be a subject matter of judicial review and modification." This assertion underscores the tribunal's deference to the collective commercial judgment of the CoC and delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention in CIRP matters. Analysis of the Appellants' Contentions The appellants raised multiple grounds for contesting the CoC's decision, including alleged procedural irregularities and the demand for alterations to the resolution plan to better serve the interests of the homebuyers. In response, the tribunal noted: "It has also not been controverted by the Appellant that all the 77 Homebuyers, including the Appellant, have accepted the offer of 100% of their principal amount from the SRA." This observation highlights the consensus reached among the stakeholders and affirms the procedural integrity of the resolution plan's approval. Concluding Reflections on Committee of Creditors' Commercial Wisdom The judgment solidifies the principle that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and that individual dissatisfaction cannot override the collective decision-making process, particularly when no material irregularities are apparent. This stance not only reinforces the intent of the IBC to ensure a timely and efficient resolution of insolvency cases but also clarifies the limits of judicial review in matters where the commercial decisions of the CoC are contested. In essence, the NCLAT's ruling in the case of Mr. Girish Nalavade Vs. Bhrugesh Amin and Ors. elucidates the careful balance the IBC seeks to maintain between legal oversight and the autonomy of the CoC's commercial judgment. It serves as a guiding precedent for future insolvency proceedings, emphasizing the need for a principled and structured approach in addressing the challenges and disputes that arise within the ambit of the IBC.   Read the full article

[ankittomar65]

The appellate tribunal was deciding over a petition filed by Shapoorji Pallonji & Co, against an order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on June 24, 2019 approving the resolution plan by Adani Power.

[best2daynews]

DHFL Case: NCLAT to hear FD, NCD holders & Wadhawan's plea on Sep 29

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) will hear pleas by fixed deposit and NCD holders of Dewan Housing Finance Corp Ltd (DHFL) and it’s former promoter Kapil Wadhawan against the approval of Piramal Capital and Housing’s resolution plan for the bankrupt NBFC.

[theechudar]

Standoff Over PF, Gratuity Dues Delay Jet Airways Revival

Standoff Over PF, Gratuity Dues Delay Jet Airways Revival

In a development that could delay the revival of Jet Airways, the Jalan-Kalrock consortium (JKC) that won the bid for resurrecting the airline said it will not make any additional payment over the Rs 475 crore approved in its Resolution Plan. The consortium said this in an application with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), according to a CNBC-TV18 report. The report added that…

[legalfundservices]

Whether section 48 of the GVAT Act, 2003 override section 53 of the IBC?

INTRODUCTION

Did you know that government secured debt can also be at the same level of priority as workman’s dues in the waterfall mechanism under the IBC? The recent Supreme court ruling in judgment State Tax Officer (1) Vs Rainbow Papers Limited[1] sheds light on this unexplored area of IBC jurisprudence.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PARTIES

Respondent was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Crafts and Oars within and outside the State of Gujarat. An amount of Rs.53,71,65,489/- was due from the Respondent to the Sales Tax authorities. On or about 8th July, 2016, recovery proceedings were initiated against the respondent, in respect of its dues for the year 2011- 2012, and the appellant attached the property of the respondent being land estate.

The appellant filed a claim before the RP, claiming that Rs.47.36 crores was due and payable by the respondent to the appellant towards its dues under the GVAT Act. After admission of the CIRP and appointment of the RP, one Kushal Limited submitted a Resolution Plan. Various Creditors had objected to the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Professional informed the appellant that the entire claim of the appellant had been waived off.  

The appellant challenged the resolution plan before the Ahmedabad bench of the NCLT which was dismissed on reasons of maintainability. The order was challenged before NCLAT under section 61[2] of the IBC.

DECISION OF NCLAT

NCLAT held that appellant’s claims came at a belated stage i.e., after approval of the ‘Resolution Plan’ by the Adjudicating Authority. Further, appellant would fall under the category of ‘operational creditor’ as defined in section 5(21)[3] of the IBC. Adding to it, the Adjudicating authority held that, since Government cannot claim first charge over the property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. Section 48 cannot prevail over Section 53.

CONTENTIONS

1.       The appellant-state contended that the Books of Accounts of the Corporate Debtor reflected the liability of the Corporate Debtor to the State in respect of its statutory dues. In abdication of its mandatory duty, the RP failed to examine the Books of Accounts of the Corporate Debtor, verify and include the same in the information memorandum and make provision for the same in the Resolution Plan.

2.       The counsels of appellants further argued that Regulation 12[4] of the 2016 Regulations which deals with the time period for submission of a claim along with proof, as stipulated in the public announcement under Section 15[5] of the IBC is not mandatory but only directory.

3.       The appellants also submitted that the mere fact that a creditor might be an operational creditor would not result in loss of status of that operational creditor as a secured creditor.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

a.       State is a secured creditor under GVAT, 2003

Section 48 of the GVAT Act which is set out herein below:

“Tax to be first charge on property — Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any amount payable by a dealer or any other person on account of tax, interest or penalty for which he is liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the property of such dealer, or as the case maybe, such person.”

The claim of the Tax Department of the State, squarely falls within the definition of “Security Interest” under Section 3(31) of the IBC and the State becomes a secured creditor under Section 3(30) of the Code. The mere fact that a creditor might be an operational creditor would not result in loss of status of that operational creditor as a secured creditor.

It was held by Supreme court that. the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors, cannot secure their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Government or Governmental Authority or for that matter, any other dues.

It further held that:

“The State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority.”

b.      Delay in filing claim

The learned ASG pointed out that the Appellant had made its claim to the RP long before the resolution plan was approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) of the IBC. Yet, the RP did not include the claim in the Resolution Plan. The court observed that delay in filing a claim cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the claim.

c.       Role of RP and Resolution plan

Under Section 31 of the IBC, a resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors under Section 30(4)[6] might be approved by the Adjudicating Authority only if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors meets the requirements as referred to in Section 30(2) of IBC. The condition precedent for approval of a resolution plan is that the resolution plan should meet the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC.

Supreme court reiterated observation in ‘Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another[7]’:

“Essentially, the adjudicating authority functions as a check on the role of the RP to ensure compliance with Section 30(2) IBC and satisfies itself that the plan approved by the CoC can be effectively implemented as provided under the proviso to Section 31(1) IBC. Once the resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, it becomes binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan...”.

d.      Consistency between IBC and GVAT, 2003

As for inconsistency between GVAT, 2003 and IBC, 2016, the SC observed that NCLAT clearly erred in its observation that Section 53 of the IBC over-rides Section 48 of the GVAT Act. Section 53 of the IBC begins with a non-obstante clause. The same is given as follows: -

“Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law enacted by the Parliament or any State Legislature for the time being in force, the proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets shall be distributed in the following order of priority...........”

As held by Supreme court, Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC. Under Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act, are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts on account of workman’s dues for a period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date.

CONCLUSION

This judgment gives clarity on the limitation of section 53 as it reflects in the non-obstante clause. Secured debts of the government including those created by virtue of GVAT, 2003 cannot be left unenforced on account of it being undefined in the IBC. This judgment opens a new avenue for creditors to enforce their security interest, even if it is not explicitly defined in the IBC legislation.

[1] (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2020)

[2] Appeals and Appellate Authority

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:

[3] "operational debt" means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority

[4] Submission of proof of claims

(1) Subject to sub-regulation (2), a creditor shall submit 45[claim with proof] on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement.

(2) A creditor, who fails to submit claim with proof within the time stipulated in the public announcement, may submit the claim with proof to the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, on or before the ninetieth day of the insolvency commencement date.

(3) Where the creditor in sub-regulation (2) is a financial creditor under regulation 8, it shall be included in the committee from the date of admission of such claim: Provided that such inclusion shall not affect the validity of any decision taken by the committee prior to such inclusion.

[5] “The public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the order referred to in section 13 shall contain the following information, namely: —

(a) name and address of the corporate debtor under the corporate insolvency resolution process;

(b) name of the authority with which the corporate debtor is incorporated or registered;

(c) the last date for submission of claims;

(d) details of the interim resolution professional who shall be vested with the management of the   corporate debtor and be responsible for receiving claims; `

(e) penalties for false or misleading claims; and (f) the date on which the corporate insolvency resolution process shall close, which shall be the one hundred and eightieth day from the date of the admission of the application under sections 7, 9 or section 10, as the case may be.”

[6] “The committee of creditors may approve a resolution plan by a vote of not less than seventy-five per cent. of voting share of the financial creditors.”

[7] (2022) 2 SCC 401

To know more: https://legalpay.in/

For original post visit: https://legal-pay-fund-services.blogspot.com/2022/10/whether-section-48-of-gvat-act-2003.html

[ancoraa-resolution]

What’s Hot: The Rainbow Judgement

Supreme Court held that NCLT & NCLAT clearly erred in its observation that Sales Tax approached RP at belated stage, after approval of Resolution Plan – claim was not filed within time. As observed by SC, delay in filing a claim cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a claim.

[harshdaftari]

The Cyrus Mistry, Who recently died in a car accident. I wanma showcase a short biography on him. ⭐ Holded many important positions in various Tata Group companies but wanted to disrupt the system/management. ⭐ He was wise person but used it in wickedly. ⭐ Tata's were always good to mistry but from this incident of him being removed from chairmanship and board have soured the relationship. ⭐ Once when he was Chairman of Tata power, he used to make all decisions covertly without intimating Tata Sons who is major shareholders in many Tata Group Companies. Instance: When Tata power bought Welspun for roughly ₹10,000 crores when the worth of company was itself ₹20,000 crores. ⭐ When asked with respect and benevolence in personal he rejected the proposal and later on the 99% of board members approved to remove him except him (he was a board member too). Then he went to courts like NLAT AND NCLAT but they rejected his appeal and it further moved to supreme court who said that Tata sons are right, rejecting the claim of mistry that there is mismanagement and minority is being suppressed. ⭐ Tata's always wanted to keep the ethics on their heads and never ever damage the reputation of "The Tata Group" ⭐The proud House of Tata's⭐ 🫡🫡🫡Jai Hind 🫡🫡🫡 The true meaning of Humanity is Mr. Ratan Tata ji. I can just end up dying but the praises of Tata's because of their work, attitude and benevolence they never "Hurt anyone" and their goals are way more than anybody could think in the sphere of "Humanity ". Just read his biography, all get transitioned deeply. ⭐Disclaimer: No hate speech against anyone, nor I want to hurt someone, its just a case study which i liked to share. #ratantata #cyrus #tata #humanity #respect #postivevibes #strength #strong #inspiration ........ #cunning #treachery #greed #misuse #trending #trend #posts #trendingposts https://www.instagram.com/p/Cif_q3mvezo/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[bhattandjoshiassociates-blog]

Section 31(4) of IBC: Whether the requirement of approval by Competition Commission of India (CCI) prior to the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC is mandatory or directory under the proviso to Section 31(4) of IBC – NCLAT New Delhi

Introduction to Section 31(4) of IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is a comprehensive legislation that aims to provide a time-bound and efficient resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy cases in India. The IBC envisages a creditor-driven process, where the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has the ultimate authority to approve or reject a resolution plan submitted by a resolution applicant. However, the IBC also mandates that certain statutory approvals, such as those from the Competition Commission of India (CCI), are required before a resolution plan can be implemented. The CCI is the regulatory body that ensures fair and healthy competition in the market and prevents anti-competitive practices. The CCI has the power to approve or reject any combination (merger, acquisition, amalgamation, etc.) that may have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. The question that arises is whether the approval by the CCI is required prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC, or whether it can be obtained after the CoC’s approval but before the implementation of the plan. This question has been addressed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in its landmark judgment in Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., where it held that the approval by the CCI prior to the approval of the CoC is directory and not mandatory. Objectives of Section 31(4) of IBC and Competition Act The main objective of the IBC is to maximise the value of assets of insolvent entities and promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all stakeholders. The IBC provides a time-bound process for resolving insolvency and bankruptcy cases, with a maximum period of 330 days for completing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The IBC also empowers the CoC to decide the fate of the insolvent entity, by approving or rejecting a resolution plan that proposes to revive or liquidate the entity. The main objective of the Competition Act, 2002 is to prevent practices that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and to protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade. The Competition Act regulates combinations (mergers, acquisitions, amalgamations, etc.) that may cause or are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India. The Competition Act requires any person or enterprise proposing to enter into a combination to give notice to the CCI in the prescribed form and manner, and obtain its approval before effecting such combination. Interplay between Section 31(4) of IBC and Competition Act The interplay between the IBC and the Competition Act arises when a resolution plan submitted under the IBC involves a combination that requires approval from the CCI under the Competition Act. Section 31(4) of the IBC provides that if a resolution plan contemplates any merger, amalgamation or arrangement with another company, then such resolution plan shall be considered as approved by shareholders if it is approved by CoC. However, a proviso to Section 31(4) states that where such merger, amalgamation or arrangement requires any approval from any authority under any law for time being in force, then such approval shall be obtained before such merger, amalgamation or arrangement becomes effective. The proviso to Section 31(4) implies that if a resolution plan involves a combination that requires approval from CCI under Section 6 of Competition Act, then such approval shall be obtained before such combination becomes effective. However, it does not specify whether such approval shall be obtained before or after the approval of CoC. This ambiguity has led to conflicting interpretations by different authorities and courts. NCLAT’s Judgment over Insolvency In Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., NCLAT was dealing with an appeal against an order passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which had rejected a resolution plan submitted by Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Soneko) on the ground that it did not have prior approval from CCI as required under Section 31(4) proviso of IBC. Soneko had submitted its resolution plan for revival of Corporate Debtor - M/s Shree Metaliks Ltd., which was undergoing CIRP under IBC. Soneko’s resolution plan had been approved by CoC with 100% voting share. However, NCLT rejected Soneko’s resolution plan on two grounds: (i) Soneko did not have prior approval from CCI as required under Section 31(4) proviso of IBC; and (ii) Soneko did not comply with Section 29A of IBC, which disqualifies certain persons from being resolution applicants. Soneko challenged the NCLT’s order before NCLAT on both grounds. NCLAT, after hearing both parties and considering the relevant provisions of IBC and Competition Act, passed a detailed judgment on 15th September 2023, wherein it held as follows: - On the first ground, NCLAT held that the requirement of approval by CCI prior to the approval of CoC is directory and not mandatory under Section 31(4) proviso of IBC. NCLAT observed that the timeline provided in the IBC for completing the CIRP is very stringent and cannot be extended beyond 330 days. On the other hand, the timeline provided in the Competition Act for obtaining approval from CCI is very flexible and can be extended up to 210 days or more. NCLAT noted that if prior approval from CCI is made mandatory before CoC’s approval, then it would lead to adverse effect on the CIRP and defeat the objective of IBC. NCLAT also noted that there is no consequence provided in the IBC for non-compliance of Section 31(4) proviso, which indicates that it is not mandatory. NCLAT further noted that even if prior approval from CCI is not obtained before CoC’s approval, it does not mean that Section 31(4) proviso is not to be complied with. The approval from CCI is still mandatory before the implementation of the resolution plan and the combination becomes effective. NCLAT relied on its previous judgments in ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., where it had held that prior approval from CCI is directory and not mandatory. - On the second ground, NCLAT held that Soneko did not violate Section 29A of IBC, which disqualifies certain persons from being resolution applicants. NCLAT observed that Soneko had submitted an affidavit stating that it was not disqualified under Section 29A of IBC and had also submitted a certificate from a chartered accountant confirming its eligibility. NCLAT also observed that Soneko had disclosed all its financial details and shareholding pattern in its resolution plan and had also submitted a declaration stating that it was not related to any other resolution applicant or connected person. NCLAT further observed that there was no evidence to show that Soneko was acting in concert with any other resolution applicant or connected person or had any common interest with them. NCLAT held that Soneko had complied with all the requirements of Section 29A of IBC and was eligible to be a resolution applicant. NCLAT, therefore, allowed Soneko’s appeal and set aside the NCLT’s order rejecting its resolution plan. NCLAT directed NCLT to approve Soneko’s resolution plan subject to obtaining approval from CCI within a period of 30 days. Conclusion The judgment of NCLAT in Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. is a significant one as it clarifies the interplay between IBC and Competition Act and resolves the ambiguity regarding the requirement of prior approval from CCI under Section 31(4) proviso of IBC. The judgment upholds the objective of IBC to provide a time-bound and efficient resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy cases, while also ensuring compliance with Competition Act to protect fair and healthy competition in the market. The judgment also reaffirms the principle that prior approval from CCI is directory and not mandatory before CoC’s approval, but mandatory before implementation of resolution plan and effectiveness of combination. Read the full article

[ultimateketomealplan]

Amazon's Plea Against Future Rejected; NCLAT Directs Online Retail Giant to Pay Rs 200-Cr Penalty in 45 Days

Amazon’s Plea Against Future Rejected; NCLAT Directs Online Retail Giant to Pay Rs 200-Cr Penalty in 45 Days

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday rejected Amazon’s plea challenging the decision of fair trade regulator Competition Commission of India (CCI) to suspend the approval for the e-commerce major’s deal with Future Coupons. The NCLAT has also upheld the Rs 200 crore fine imposed on Amazon and granted the company 45 days to pay. The fine has been imposed for non-disclosure…

[new-haryanvi-ragni]

Amazon likely to challenge NCLAT order in Supreme Court

Amazon likely to challenge NCLAT order in Supreme Court

Amazon is likely to move the Supreme Court against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order which rejected its plea challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) suspension of approval of the US e-tailer’s investment in Future Coupons (FCPL). from Business News: Latest News on Business, Stock Markets, Financial News, India Business & World Business News…

[thenetionalnews]

NCLAT: NCLAT rejects Amazon's plea against CCI order; directs to deposit Rs 200 crore penalty in 45 days | India Business News

NCLAT: NCLAT rejects Amazon’s plea against CCI order; directs to deposit Rs 200 crore penalty in 45 days | India Business News

NEW DELHI: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday rejected Amazon’s plea challenging the decision of fair trade regulator CCI to suspend the approval for the e-commerce major’s deal with Future Coupons. The NCLAT said “the appellant Amazon has not made full, whole, forthright and frank disclosures of relevant materials. It had furnished only limited disclosures pertaining…