TIER-1

  How do you proof execution of will?   Shubham Budhiraja LLB, CS, BCOM(H) Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315 Advocate, Delhi High Court Member of Research Committee, Northern Region-ICSI Member of Delhi High Court bar association Running an NGO “Shaurya ek Samman” duly registered under Society registration act, 1860   The trial court dismissed granting letter of administration/ probate but High Court allowed in appeal. The Supreme Court [1] set aside the HC Judgment and held that the will was executed in suspicious circumstances because the testator was bed ridden and was suffering from critical disease where he was not able to sign documents. Hence, the execution of will is not proved.   Case laws Relevant Remarks H.Venkatachala Iyenger vs. B.N.Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443   Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 18

  Shubham Budhiraja (LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)) (Advocate, Delhi High Court) Contact: 9654055315, shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com Mr. A has a loan account with the bank which is declared as NPA for defaults in repayment. The bank issued circular inviting a one time settlement (OTS) scheme to settle the default loan accounts as per which 20% of debt to be paid up-front. Mr. A applied for the OTS but bank denied the same. The HC issued mandamus against bank directing it consider the OTS application positivity because Mr. A meets the eligibility criteria of OTS and also ready to pay 50% of debt. The Supreme Court [1] set aside the HC order because; (I)                  When Bank can claim the full recovery from Mr. A through its property then why should bank be compelled to accept lesser recovery through OTS of Mr. A account;   (II)                Mere because Mr. A meets the OTS eligibility does not mean that he can claim OTS as matter of right irrespective of its financial conditio

  Whether IRP can ask practicing Company secretary to do verification of claims under IBC on its behalf? Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A appointed as IRP by NCLT, Delhi in matter of CIRP of XYZ Limited. Mr. A appointed Mr. B (Practicing Company Secretary) for purpose of helping Mr. A in verification of claims of creditors (as required to be done as duty of IRP). Mr. A contend that since XYZ limited is a big concern and its claim documents are in huge volumes and verification process is time bound under IBC and therefore he asked Mr. B to assist him in verification and the fee payment of Mr. B was also approved by COC in its 1 st meeting. The IBBI held that delegation of its duty of verification of claims by IRP is in breach of section 18(1)(b) of the Code, regulation 13 (1) of the CIRP Regulations and IBBI Circular no. IP/003/2018 dated 3rd January, 2018 and hence IRP is guilty and penalized with the amount equal to fees paid to Mr. B [2] (I)                  An IRP / RP is appointe