- Home
- News
- Articles+
- 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
- Know the 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
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- 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
- Know the 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
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Allows Settlements During Pending Resolution Process Of IL&FS Group
Supreme Court Allows Settlements During Pending Resolution Process Of IL&FS Group The settlement agreements envisaged that the Appellant would transfer his shares after receiving two tranches of payments from the Respondents The Supreme Court of India accepted settlements by agreeing that there would be no bar or prohibition arising out of the pending resolution process of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court Allows Settlements During Pending Resolution Process Of IL&FS Group
The settlement agreements envisaged that the Appellant would transfer his shares after receiving two tranches of payments from the Respondents
The Supreme Court of India accepted settlements by agreeing that there would be no bar or prohibition arising out of the pending resolution process of IL&FS Group of Companies.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R Shah dealt with this matter titled Vivek Agarwal v Kanak Resources Management Limited & Anr.
The Court did not go into the factual matrix of the matter and purely dealt with it on the technical legal aspect of it. A former judge of the Supreme Court had been supervising the resolution process of the IL&FS Group of Companies, pursuant to an order of appointment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The present petition dealt with the issue of settlements taking place during the resolution process and if they would face any bar or prohibition arising out of the pending proceedings in regard to the IL&FS Group of Companies.
The opinion of the former judge was that the acceptance of the 'Settlement Agreements' would not face any bar or prohibition arising out of the pending Resolution Process of IL&FS Group of Companies, which was being supervised in terms of the orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
The Court agreed with the clarification given by the former judge that there appeared to be no reason why the settlements should not be accepted.
The settlement agreements envisaged that the Appellant would transfer his shares after receiving two tranches of payments from the Respondents.
The Court noted the timelines in the settlements had already come to an end and therefore, modified the payment schedule.
The Appeal was thus, disposed of by accepting the settlements.