A-4 Weekly Browser
Authority
will
compete
to
take
control
and
possession
of
assets,
in
India
and
other^
jurisdictions,
which
is
neither
in
the
interest
of
smooth
functioning
of
the^
insolvency
process
nor
in
the
interest
of
the
stakeholders
including
the
creditors.^
The
intervenor
also
stated
that
cross
border
insolvency
provisions,
i.e.,
section
234
and
section
235
have
not
been
given
effect
however,
there
is
no
bar
or
prohibition^
under
IBC
for
the
Adjudicating
authority
to
recognize
the
insol
vency -
proceeding
in
a
foreign
jurisdiction.NCLT’s verdict
The
Tribunal
ruled
that
order
passed
by
Noord
Holland
District
Court,
the
Netherland^
for
the
company
registered
in
India
is
nullity
ab initio.
The
Tribunal
observed
that
in
the
instant
case,
the
Indian
Government
has
no
such^
reciprocal
arrangement
with
the
Government
of
Netherland.
Therefore,
none^
of
the
courts
have
any
jurisdiction
to
pass
an
order
under
IBC,
where
the^
assets
and
properties
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
are
situated
in
a
country
outside^
their
country.
The
Tribunal
also
observed
that
there
is
no
provision
and
mechanism
in
the
I&B^
Code,
at
this
moment,
to
recognize
the
judgment
of
an
insolvency
court
of^
any
Foreign
Nation.
Thus,
even
if
the
judgment
of
Foreign
Court
is
verified
and^
found
to
be
true,
still,
sansthe
relevant
provisions
in
the
I&B
Code,
and
therefore,^
rejected
to
consider
the
order
of
foreign
court
on
record.
The
Tribunal
directed
the
IRP
to
proceed
in
the
matter
with
immediate
effect
without^
being
influenced
by
order
of
the
Noord
Holland
District
Court,
Neth
erland -
and
file
the
progress
report
every
fortnightly.Demand of advance payment for supply of medicine by CIPLA to
stockiest wasn’t anti-competitive practice
Kalyan Chowdhary v. Cipla Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 176 (CCI)
Informant,
being
stockists/wholesaler
of
pharmaceutical
company,
alleged
that^
pharma-company
stopped
supplying
medicines
to
him
despite
placement
of^
orders.
It
was
alleged
that
same
was
done
at
behest
of
Bengal
Chemist
&
Druggist^
Association
(BCDA),
because
of
case
filed
by
him
against
BCDA
in
NCLT^
and
such
conduct
of
pharmaceutical
company
had
resulted
not
only
in
denial^
of
market
access
but
also
had
caused
financial
hardship
to
him.
In
beginning
of
their
relationship,
pharmaceutical
company
started
supplying
medicine^
to
informant
only
after
BCDA
issued
an
NOC
to
informant
after
receiving^
Rs.
50
thousand
under
guise
of
a
donation,
which
amounted
to
imposing^
unfair
practice
on
informant.
According
to
informant
alleged
behaviour
of
BCDA
&
Co.
amounted
to
viola
tion -
of
provisions
of
sections
3
and
4
of
the
Act
and
from
material
available