Latest news with #IFIN
United News of India
01-08-2025
- Business
- United News of India
SC sets aside NCLAT ruling, allows IL&FS appeal in insolvency case
New Delhi, Aug 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court today allowed the appeal filed by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN) and overturned the March 25, 2025, judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had upheld the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) dismissal of IFIN's insolvency plea as time-barred. The case involved a loan default by Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., and the key issue was whether entries in the company's 2019–20 balance sheet could be treated as an acknowledgment of debt. IFIN argued that this acknowledgment extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing them to initiate insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Supreme Court agreed with IFIN, holding that the balance sheet entries indicated that the debt was still unpaid even though IFIN's name was not directly mentioned. The Court said that acknowledgment of liability does not need to name the creditor, as long as it shows the existence of a debt. The Bench also addressed confusion over its earlier COVID-related orders on extension of limitation. It clarified that the correct clause to apply was Para 5(I) of its suo motu judgment in In Re: Cognisance for Extension of Limitation. As a result, the period between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, would not be counted in calculating the deadline. Thus, IFIN's application filed on January 15, 2024, was held to be well within the extended limitation period. The Court referred to and reaffirmed earlier rulings, including Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Bishal Jaiswal (2021) and Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank (2024), stating that balance sheet entries should be interpreted in a broad, contextual manner to determine acknowledgment of debt. Setting aside the findings of both the NCLT and NCLAT, the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the NCLT for a fresh decision on the merits. Senior Advocate Ritin Rai, along with a legal team from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, represented IFIN. UNI SNG AAB
Hindustan Times
21-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
HC confirms ₹9.76-crore Stamp Act penalty on IL&FS
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday confirmed a ₹ 9.76-crore penalty imposed on IL&FS Financial Services Ltd (IFIN) for failing to pay stamp duty on time following the demerger of the company. A single judge bench of justice Jitendra Jain dismissed the petition filed by the IL&FS group firm, challenging the levy of penalty over and above the stamp duty of ₹ 7.07 crore, which was payable towards registration of the court order on the company's demerger. (Shutterstock) IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) underwent a demerger in 2007-08, wherein iIts ancillary businesses including IFIN were constituted as wholly-owned subsidiaries and IL&FS was transformed into a holding company focused on investments and lending to its group companies. After the Bombay high court operating under the Companies Act, 1956 sanctioned the demerger scheme in April 2008, the company lodged the document with the collector of stamps for adjudication of stamp duty. The company subsequently failed to supply documents and information sought by the collector of stamps, which resulted in the collector issuing a demand letter on December 19, 2014 for payment of stamp duty and penalty. On December 31, 2014, the collector of stamps issued a demand notice to the company, directing them to pay ₹ 7.07 crore towards stamp duty and ₹ 9.76 crore towards penalty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The company accepted the stamp duty, but opposed imposition of the penalty and appealed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) in January 2015. On March 25, 2015, the CCRA granted a stay on recovery proceedings for the penalty after the company deposited the stamp duty. After the CCRA dismissed the company's petition in 2017, it approached the high court. Before the high court, IL&FS argued that as per section 31(4) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, penalty at the rate of 2% could be imposed only if the stamp duty payable under section 30 of the Act was not paid within 60 days from the date on which the notice of demand was served. The company contended that March 25, 2015 – the date of the interim order of the CCRA – was the date of serving demand notice under section 31(4) and since it had paid the stamp duty on March 27, 2015 – that is, within two days of the said interim order – there was no default and consequently, no penalty could be imposed. The court observed that the 60-day period would, at most, start from December 19, 2014 – the date on which the demand letter was issued; or December 31, 2014 – the date on which the demand notice was issued; or January 14, 2015 – then the company filed an appeal with the CCRA. 'The petitioner after having admitted the liability of payment of stamp duty vide letter dated December 19, 2014 and made the respondents (collector of stamps) to issue final demand notice dated December 31, 2014 failed to make payment within 60 days thereof, which would expire on March 2, 2015,' the court said, confirming the penalty imposed on the company.
