Siti Networks Ltd. vs. Rajiv Suri (INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 31055 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2016 IN SUIT NO. 2295 OF 2002), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 600

M/s Vedic Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shri Sutanu Sinha, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1927 of 2024

K.H. Khan & Anr. Vs. Art Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1116 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1117 of 2024

LAW & KENNETH SAATCHI & SAATCHI PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PATANJALI PARIDHAN PRIVATE LIMITED, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1033 of 2023

Mr. Babu Manoharan Jaikumar Christhurajan V Mr. Umesh Garg & 2 Ors, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.358/2022

Meenakshi and Kushal Goyal Versus Amit Agarwal and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1022 of 2024

Clarion Health Food LLP Versus Goli Vada Pav Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1522 of 2023

Praveen Arya & Ors. Versus Anju Aggarwal (RP of Corporate Debtor ) & Anr, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 40 of 2024 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.45 of 2024 & Interlocutory Application No.140 of 2024

Getz Cables Private Limited Versus State Bank of India and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1953 of 2024

CA Ramasamy Shanmuggam, Liquidator of RLS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.413/2022

Raghavendra Joshi Residing Versus Indian Bank and Anr., I.A. No. 2247/2023 IN C.P. NO. 575(IB)/MB/2022

Bank of India vs. GF Toll Road Private Limited, CP (IB)/83 (MB)/2024 and CP (IB)/120 (MB)/2024

High Court

Asset Deposited By Corporate Debtor As Security Before CIRP Commencement Continues To Be Asset Of Corporate Debtor: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Siti Networks Ltd. vs. Rajiv Suri (INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 31055 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2016 IN SUIT NO. 2295 OF 2002)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 600

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that monies or any other asset deposited by a corporate debtor in court prior to commencement of CIRP by way of security would continue to be the asset of the corporate debtor.

The court observed that the moratorium on the enforcement of a claim for execution of a decree has commenced, and upon failure of the CIRP, the asset would form part of the liquidation estate. As stated in Byju, the asset is intended to be distributed to creditors in proportion to what is owed to them, and one creditor cannot gain an advantage over the others by being paid out, particularly outside of the CIRP or liquidation.

NCLAT

Interest On Operational Debt Cannot Be Claimed If There Is No Clause In Agreement For Payment Of Interest: NCLAT

Case Title: M/s Vedic Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shri Sutanu Sinha

Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1927 of 2024

The NLCAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that no interest on principal amount can be claimed if there is no clause to this effect in the agreement executed between the parties. In this case, operational creditor while claiming its operational due also demanded payment of interest since it was an MSME and as per section 16 of the MSME Act, it was entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment. However, the RP rejected this demand and admitted only the principal amount.

Development Rights Constitute Property U/S 3(27) Of IBC, Can Be Included In Information Memorandum By RP U/S 29 Of Code: NCLAT

Case Title: K.H. Khan & Anr. Vs. Art Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1116 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1117 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) affirmed that development rights are property within the meaning of section 3(27) of the IBC which can be included in the Information Memorandum by Resolution Professional under section 29 of the IBC. The Tribunal further observed that the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to enter into as to whether property included in the IM is asset of the corporate debtor under section 60 of the IBC and for decision of the question, the parties are not required to be relegated to the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction

If Genuine Pre-Existing Dispute With Regard To Operational Debt Is Established, Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Must Be Rejected: NCLAT

Case Title: LAW & KENNETH SAATCHI & SAATCHI PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PATANJALI PARIDHAN PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1033 of 2023

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) affirmed that a petition under section 9 of the IBC can be rejected if the dispute raised by the corporate debtor with respect to the debt is genuine and not a moonshine or a bluster just to avoid the liability.

NCLAT Judge Records In Order His Brother's Message For Favour, Recuses From Matter

Case : Mr. Babu Manoharan Jaikumar Christhurajan V Mr. Umesh Garg & 2 Ors |Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.358/2022

A judicial member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has recused from hearing a matter after his brother messaged him requesting favourable orders in the case.

Interestingly, in the recusal order, the judge extracted the entire message verbatim.

The extraordinary event took place before the bench presided by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma at the NCLAT Chennai Bench. Justice Sharma stated in the order that he was "approached" by his real brother.

CoC Has Authority To Modify Resolution Plan To Comply With Directions Of Supreme Court: NCLAT

Case Title: Meenakshi and Kushal Goyal Versus Amit Agarwal and Ors.

Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1022 of 2024

The NCLAT has affirmed that the CoC is empowered to modify the resolution plan in order to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. In this case,while resolution plan was pending before the Adjudicating Authority, the Supreme Court passed its decision in State Tax Officer in which it was held that the debts owed to a secured creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act, are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts on account of workman's dues for a period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date.

Since Shareholders Of Corporate Debtor Do Not Fall Within Definition Of “Aggrieved Party”, Appeal Filed U/S 61 Of IBC Not Maintainable: NCLAT

Case Title: Clarion Health Food LLP Versus Goli Vada Pav Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1522 of 2023

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member),Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) affirmed that a shareholder of the company is not the “aggrieved party” as per the provisions of the Code therefore appeal filed by him under section 61 of the Code would not be maintainable.

The 'Appellants' even as “shareholders” cannot be aggrieved merely by the admission of the 'Corporate Debtor' into 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process'. Such objection may render the object of I & B Code, 2016 illusory since any shareholder of any 'Corporate Debtor' against which Insolvency proceedings have been initiated can then seek to maintain a derivative action and sabotage a valid 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' initiated by the Adjudicating Authority, the tribunal noted.

Allotment Of Commercial Space By Corporate Debtor Through Unregistered Allotment Letter Remains Their Asset, Can't Be Excluded From Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Title: Praveen Arya & Ors. Versus Anju Aggarwal (RP of Corporate Debtor ) & Anr

Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 40 of 2024 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.45 of 2024 & Interlocutory Application No.140 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that allotment of commercial spaces by the corporate debtor through unregistered documents like allotment letter, lease deed etc.cannot divest the CD of their ownership. They would continue to remain the assets of the CD therefore they cannot be excluded from the Resolution Plan.

Filing Petition U/S 10 Of IBC Subsequent To Action Taken Under SARFAESI Act Cannot Be Termed Malicious Or Fraudulent: NCLAT

Case Title: Getz Cables Private Limited Versus State Bank of India and Anr.

Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1953 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that merely because proceeding under Section 13, sub-section (2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act has been initiated by the creditor prior to filing of Section 10 application, cannot be a ground to hold that Section 10 application is filed with malicious and fraudulent intent to be rejected under section 65 of the IBC.

Official Liquidator Cannot Institute S. 61 Proceedings To Challenge Directions Issued To IBBI: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: CA Ramasamy Shanmuggam, Liquidator of RLS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.413/2022

The National Company Law Appellate Chennai comprising of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member Technical) dismissed an appeal filed by the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor M/s RLS Alloys Pvt. Ltd stating that the appeal is a pre-mature appeal and that the Liquidator cannot institute a Section 61 proceedings to challenge the directions given to the IBBI.

NCLT

Property Of Personal Guarantors Cannot Be Sold Under SARFAESI Act During Moratorium Period U/S 96 Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Raghavendra Joshi Residing Versus Indian Bank and Anr.

Case Reference: I.A. No. 2247/2023 IN C.P. NO. 575(IB)/MB/2022

The NCLT Mumbai bench of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Member Technical) and Justice Lakshmi Gurung (Member Judicial) has held that once a petition under section 95 of the IBC is filed, the interim moratorium under section 96 is triggered. During subsistence of the moratorium, property of the personal guarantors cannot be sold by the financial creditor under the SARFAESI Act even if sale auction notice was issued before commencement of the moratorium.
When Statutory Criteria U/S 7 Of IBC Is Satisfied, Tribunal Must Admit CIRP: NCLT, Mumbai

Case Title: Bank of India vs. GF Toll Road Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB)/83 (MB)/2024 and CP (IB)/120 (MB)/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench, comprising Justice V. G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has held that the petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was admissible as the statutory criteria under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), viz. the existence of financial debt, default were satisfied. The Tribunal reiterated that the existence of an arbitral award in favour of the Corporate Debtor did not bar the admission of the CIRP petition. It observed that no "good reason" existed to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal also observed, “It is trite law that this Tribunal cannot enforce an alternate mode of resolution than provided in the Code.