Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna rejected Wadhwans’ appeal against the State Corporate Legal Appeal Court of Refused to accept the appeal last year.
The Mumbai Tribunal of the National Company Tribunal admitted that the bankruptcy petition filed by the United Bank of India was to initiate a bankruptcy lawsuit against the duo, breached, breached Rs 3.958 crore in breach lawsuit, with interest and fines. The court had admitted in December 2019 that DHFL entered the company’s bankruptcy settlement process.
Wadhwans told SC that NCLAT mistakenly applied Article 95 of IBC to the current issue to rule that the company petition could be filed by one creditor or jointly with other creditors.
As article 1 of the Security Trustee Agreement expressly provides that the ‘sad Banks ” means all the banks collectively, and “Bank” means any of the bank individually, the term said “Banks” in clauses 10 and 43 of the Joint Deed of Guarantee have to be read to mean all the banks collectively, as any other reading would render the Security Trustee Agreement redundant, Wadhawans lawsers argued.
In this regard, the court failed to take into account the real explanation that the creditors themselves would be eligible for all banks as part of the consortium rather than as an isolated bank,” the call said, Vodavs said, who further pointed out that NCLAT could not allow NCLAT to defend continuously within this scope to put India’s placement in “Inimus In Uniguts” as the conception of “Inimus In Uniguts”. It was said to be available in the first round of lawsuits, but was not filed.
According to the Reserve Bank of India, United Bank of India also moved the court as a bankruptcy filing against DHFL’s financial creditor. The bank has filed a claim of Rs 3,646 crore, of which Rs 3,517 crore was acknowledged by the management of the debt-debt company.
