NCLAT Banker's Certificate Not Mandatorily Required To Trigger CIRP Under Section 9 Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: M/s Quippo Infrastructure Limited v M.R. Nirman Private Limited Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1516 of 2019. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and...
NCLAT
Banker's Certificate Not Mandatorily Required To Trigger CIRP Under Section 9 Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi
Case Title: M/s Quippo Infrastructure Limited v M.R. Nirman Private Limited
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1516 of 2019.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that a Banker's Certificate is not mandatorily required to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLAT Reprimands Haryana Excise And Taxation Department For Its Casual Attitude
Case Title: Excise and Taxation Department v Allied Strips Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1506 OF 2019
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Jain and Dr Alok Srivastava expressed its displeasure towards the casual attitude of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department in pursuing the case before the NCLAT. The Bench remarked that the excise and taxation department is claiming an amount of Rupees 62.87 Crores in the appeal but the department is not interested in pursuing the matter as no one appeared on behalf of the department even after repeated calls. The Bench also noted that this matter shall be brought to the knowledge of Secretary, Department of Excise and Taxation, Government of Haryana to take appropriate actions against the officers who are not pursuing the appeal diligently.
Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Singh Nain & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 425 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice N Satyanarayana Murthy and Mr. Barun Mitra held that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not a bar for initiation of proceedings against the resolution professional of a company undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 66 of the Code. NCLAT held that Section 14 and Section 66 are independent provisions incorporated for different purposes and therefore, these provisions have to be read independently to achieve the objective of the Code.
Certified Copy Preparation Period Can Be Excluded For Limitation Under Section 61 Of The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016: NCLAT DELHI
Case Title: Chhote Lal Gupta v Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 955 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra recently held that the time taken for preparation of the certified copy of the order/judgment will be excluded for computation of limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. "The Appellant is entitled to exclude the period for which certified copy was under preparation. Certified Copy was applied on 08th June, 2022 and delivered on 09th June, 2022 hence two days period is entitled to be excluded in computing the limitation".
NCLT Can Reject The Resolution Plan Due To Non Serious & Casual Conduct Of Resolution Applicant: NCLAT
Case Detail: Cimco Projects v Anup Kumar
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M Satyanarayana murthy, Mr Barun Mitra held that non serious and casual conduct of a resolution applicant is a sufficient ground to reject the resolution plan filed by such resolution applicant and approved by the committee of creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT further held that NCLT rightly dismissed the plan approval application as the Successful Resolution Applicant has not shown any willingness to proceed with the Resolution Plan. The CIRP is a time bound period and the same cannot be continued for indefinite period.
Only Creditors Who Triggered Insolvency Resolution Process Can Be Impleaded As A Party: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title: V. Venkata Sivakumar v IDBI Bank Ltd.
Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 269 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Chennai Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") has no provision to implead creditors other than the ones which triggered the insolvency resolution process.
The Bench observed that to array a person as a `prospective / proposed Respondent(s)' is not a `Substantive Right', but undoubtedly, it is one of the `procedure' and the Tribunal is to exercise its judicial discretion, of course, in a subjective manner, diligently. It cannot be gainsaid that, an `Individual' will not be added as a `Party', just because he will be affected by the `Tribunal' incidentally, when it passes an `Order' in a given `proceedings', before it. The Bench further observed that a person cannot be coerced to get included a person as Party against whom he does not want to contest, unless it is a compulsion of Law. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be passed effectively, or in whose absence an effective order can be made but his presence is necessary for arriving at a final decision. Further, a mere interest of a Party in the fruits of litigation cannot be a test for impleading him as a Party.
NCLT
NCLT Mumbai Initiates Insolvency Against Topworth Urja & Metals, A Topworth Group Enterprise
Case Title: Bank of Baroda v Topworth Urja & Metals Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) 1807/MB/C-I/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice P.N. Deshmukh (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. over a default of Rs. 218,14,20,222.95/- and has appointed Mr. Alok Kailash Saksena as the Interim Resolution Professional. Topworth Urja & Metals Limited is a company promoted by Mr. Abhay Lodha and belongs to the Topworth Group of companies, engaged in iron and steel sector business.
SBI Files Insolvency Proceedings Against Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd., A Bajaj Group Enterprise
Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. ("BHSL") is a part of the Bajaj Group of Companies and is a leading manufacturer of sugar and ethanol in India. The Company had availed credit facilities from financial institutions including the State Bank of India and its accounts were declared Non Performing Asset after payment defaults. In a Regulatory filing dated 16.08.2022, BHSL under Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, has disclosed that State Bank of India has filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") before the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against BHSL over payment defaults.
Section 14 Of IBC Does Not Differentiate Between Assessment, Quasi-Judicial Or Judicial Proceedings: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: M/S Ravi Infrastructure & Projects v KSS Petron Private Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) 1202/MB/C-II/2017
The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice P.N. Deshmukh (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") does not differentiate between assessment, quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings and moratorium is imposed on all proceedings irrespective of the nature. The Bench has set aside the assessment proceedings initiated by the Provident Fund Commissioner during the moratorium period.