NCLAT

Since CoC Is Re-Constituted Post Approval Of Plan, It Must Be Again Examined By The New CoC: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Dauphin Cables Pvt. Ltd. v Praveen Bansal Resolution Professional & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 634-636 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that when the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is re-constituted post approval of a resolution plan, due to recategorization of a creditor, then the approved resolution plan must be placed again before the reconstituted CoC for its consideration.

IBC | Sec. 9 Petition For Implementation Of Arbitral Award Is Not Maintainable: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. KK Ropeways Limited v M/s. Billion Smiles Hospitality

Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 246 / 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Chairperson) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has upheld that a petition filed under Section 9 of IBC for implementation of an Arbitral Award is not maintainable and not in tune with the objective of IBC. The Bench has further held that arbitration and IBC proceedings cannot go on together.

Avoidance Application(S) Can Continue Post Completion Of CIRP: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Kapil Wadhawan v Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 437 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that avoidance application(s) can continue even after completion of CIRP.

The Bench placed reliance on Section 26 of IBC to interpret that proceedings of avoidance application are a different stream and do not affect the CIRP. Similarly, Section 36(3)(f) of IBC indicates that post completion of CIRP, the statute envisages recoveries through proceedings for avoidance transactions. Further, Regulation 38(2)(d) of CIRP Regulations shows the legislative intent that Resolution Plan must provide for the manner in which avoidance transactions would be pursued after approval of Plan.

Resolution Professional Empowered To Keep Claims In Abeyance: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sravanam

Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 12 / 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that it is within the power of the Resolution Professional to keep the claim(s) submitted by the creditors in abeyance, for plurality of reasons. The Bench has permitted the Resolution Professional to keep a claim in abeyance, in respect of which arbitration proceedings were ongoing and the Corporate Debtor’s counter claim was pending determination before the Arbitral Tribunal.

SRA Can Pursue Avoidance Application Post Completion Of CIRP, If Plan Contains A Clause To That Effect: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Kapil Wadhawan v Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 437 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that avoidance application(s) can be pursued by the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”) post completion of CIRP, if the approved Resolution Plan contains a specific clause for pursuing such applications by the SRA.

Further, when a Resolution Plan specifically empowers the SRA to pursue the avoidance applications, then said provisions of the Plan shall bind everyone including the erstwhile Administrator/Resolution Professional.

NCLT

NCLT Delhi Approves Ace Infracity’s Resolution Plan For Three C Homes; Development Work Of ‘Lotus City’ To Conclude Within 24 Months

Case Title: Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha v M/s Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: IB-432(ND)/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member), has approved the resolution plan of M/s. Ace Infracity Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Successful Resolution Applicant/SRA”) for Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd.

The Resolution Plan is valued at Rs. 140,39,27,000/-. No claims have been received from the operational creditors and hence they have been paid NIL under the plan.

With regard to Farmer’s Compensation, the SRA is offering 100% of principal of farmer’s compensation (Rs. 71.66 Crores) which is included in Rs. 173.46 crores agreed to pay to YEIDA.

Further, the SRA has undertaken to complete the development work of the plots in the Lotus City Project and hand over the units to the allottees. The Resolution Plan is valid for a period of 24 months for closure and handover. Also, the SRA will seek RERA re-registration of the Project for completion of work.

NCLT Approves Plan For Galada Power And Telecommunications Ltd.: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai vs. M/s. Galada Power And Telecommunications Ltd.

Case No.: CP(IB) No.384/7/HDB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Shri Dr. N. V. Rama Krishna Badarinath (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Amrutha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for M/s. Galada Power and Telecommunications Ltd. The Resolution Plan is valued at Rs. 42.13 Crores.

The SRA has proposed to Rs. 8.70 Crores towards repairs, refurbishment and Working Capital for revival of the Corporate Debtor.

The resolution plan proposes to pay the Secured Financial Creditors an amount of Rs. 29.32 Crores against an admitted claim of 2107.28 Crores. The Operational Creditors such as the Government will be paid Rs. 8.62 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 345.01 Lakhs. The Workmen of the Corporate Debtor are to be paid Rs. 17.83 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 18.26 Lakhs. The Employees of the Corporate Debtor are to be paid Rs. 31.19 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 71.16 Lakhs. While the other Operational Creditors will be paid Rs. 3.11 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 124.30 Lakhs.