IBC | Section 9 Petition Not To Be Dismissed If Few Invoices Are Time Barred But Remaining Invoices Are Not; Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v M/S K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, has held that when a petition under Section 9 of IBC is filed based on several invoices and some of the invoices are time barred, then NCLT must consider the remaining invoices which are within limitation and whether they cross the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore. The Section 9 petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that some of the invoices are time barred.

NCLAT

“IBC Does Not Contemplate Multiplicity Of Applications Against The Same Personal Guarantor”: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Union Bank of India v Mr. P.K. Balasubramanian

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 293 of 2022

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 when the Insolvency Resolution Process commences against a Personal Guarantor, the claims of all Creditors are taken care of. The IBC does not contemplate multiplicity of applications against the same Personal Guarantor.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Subsequent Reduction Of Claim By The IRP, Based On An Arbitral Award

Case Title: Intec Capital Ltd. v Uday Kumar Bhaskar Bhat

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.361 of 2023.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has upheld the decision of the IRP whereby the claim of financial creditor was reduced after having been once admitted, based on an arbitral award which came into knowledge of IRP subsequently. The Bench held that the IRP is empowered to change the claim amount in the event any additional material comes into picture.

Financial Creditor Who Does Not Attend Proceedings, Cannot Claim That Cirp Has Been Wrongly Conducted: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Consolidated Finvest & Holdings Ltd. v Subhash Kumar Kundra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 312 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a Financial Creditor who does not attend the CIRP proceeding, cannot be heard in saying that CIRP has wrongly been conducted. The Bench has also upheld the imposition of Rs. 10 Lakhs cost by the Adjudicating Authority on the Financial Creditor for filing frivolous application.

GOOGLE V CCI: NCLAT Delhi Upholds Imposition Of Rs. 1337.76 Crores Penalty On Google, For Abuse Of Dominant Position In Android Market

Case Title: Google LLC & Anr. v Competition Commission of India

Case No.: Competition Appeal (AT) (ND) No.01 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has dismissed Google’s appeal against CCI order dated 20.10.2022, wherein the Competition Commission of India had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1337.76 Crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in denial of market access for competing search apps.

NCLAT Chennai To Conduct Physical Hearings On Tuesday, Wednesday And Thursday

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, has issued a circular dated 01.04.2023, intimating that cases before NCLAT Chennai will be taken up through only Physical Mode on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Further, matters would be heard in Virtual Mode every Monday and Friday. In case if any Member of NCLAT Chennai is on leave on a particular day, then the cases will be heard through Virtual Mode on that particular day. The aforesaid arrangement shall continue until further orders by the Chairperson or Judicial Member of NCLAT.

Claim For Pre-CIRP Dues Not Been Filed, Electricity Department Not Entitled To Recover Such Dues Or To Disconnect Electricity: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Swastik Aqua Ltd. & Anr. v Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 847 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that if the Electricity Department does not file any claim for its pre-CIRP electricity dues, then it is neither entitled to recover the pre-CIRP electricity dues, nor entitled to disconnect the connection of Corporate Debtor over such non-payment.

Allocation Of Meagre Amount Cant Be A Ground To Question The Resolution Plan: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Pani Logistics v Vikas G. Jain & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 205 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that mere allocation of meagre amount cannot be a ground to question the resolution plan. The allocation in the resolution plan to the creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value. The NCLAT Bench has upheld the NCLT’s order, wherein it was held that the Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount when Financial Creditors have not been paid in full in the Resolution Plan.

No Scope For Condonation Of Delay Beyond 15 Days, Much Less 45 Days: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Diwakar Sharma v Anand Sonbhadra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1446 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that there is no scope for condonation of delay beyond the period of 15 days much less 45 days, as there is no window available for NCLAT to exercise its jurisdiction for condonation of delay.

NCLAT

Threshold Limit Of Rs. 1 Crore Applicable From The Date Of Filing And Not From Date Of Registration Of Petition: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Royal Manpower Services v Faridabad Autocomp System Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 370 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member), has held the revised minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore is applicable from the date of filing of petition and not from the date of registration. The Bench revived a petition under Section 9 of IBC having a default lesser than Rs. 1 Crore, which was filed in 2019 but got registered in 2021. It has been observed that the subsequent registration of the petition will not change the date of filing.

S. 66 Of IBC: Fraud Includes A Debt Which Debtor Has No Intention To Repay: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Shri Baiju Trading and Investment Private Limited v Mr. Arihant Nenawati & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 699 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held under that ‘fraud’ for the purpose of Section 66 of IBC would consist of debts which the Debtor has no intention to repay or does not expect to be able to pay. Further, fraud may also happen by way of false representation, without there being any intention to pay back. The expression ‘any persons’ in Section 66 of IBC includes a knowing party to the carrying out of fraudulent transactions.

Creditor Who Don’t Submit Claim Or Raises Issues In CIRP, Has No Right To Challenge Resolution Plan: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. v Jagdish Kumar & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1113 of 2020

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that a creditor who neither submits its claim before the IRP/Resolution Professional, nor raises any issue during the entire CIRP period, cannot be allowed to challenge resolution plan which has already been implemented.

AA Not Required To Assess The Correct Amount Of Debt At Admission Stage: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Manmohan Gupta v MDS Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.202 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the Adjudicating Authority is not required to express any opinion on the correctness of debt amount at the admission stage of petition. Rather, it is the Resolution Professional who would subsequently assess the correct debt amount at the time of collation of the claims.

Subsequently Modified OTS Proposal Would Further Refresh The Limitation Period: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. State Bank of India v M/s. Hackbridge Hewittic and Easun Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 05 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that submission of a One Time Settlement (“OTS”) proposal is acknowledgement of debt in terms of Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963. Further, any fresh or subsequent/modified OTS proposal would further extend the limitation period by three years.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Rejection Of ‘Discovery & Inspection’ Application Filed By Corporate Debtor In Section 9 Petition

Case Title: Baba Baidnath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. v Textile Solutions

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 426 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has upheld the rejection of an application for discovery and inspection of documents field by the Corporate Debtor in a petition under Section 9 of IBC. The Bench held that the worth of document filed by the Operational Creditor is to be considered at the time of considering the Section 9 petition. Further, the embargo to file relevant documents in support of its case is on the Operational Creditor alone.

NCLT

NCLT Chennai Approves The Resolution Plan Of Adani Port And Sez Ltd. For Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB)/85/(CHE)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Shri. Sameer Kakkar (Technical Member) has approved the resolution plan submitted by Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. for Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. is a Mr. Gautam Adani promoted company and a part of Adani Group. It owns 12 domestic ports in India, spread across the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha.

NCLT Hyderabad Approves Resolution Plan Of Jindal Saw Limited Of Merger With Sathavahana Ispat Limited

Case Title: Trimex Industries Vs. Sathavahana Ispat Limited

Case No: IA (IBC) No.1475 of 2022 in CP IB No.17/9/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badrinath (Member Judicial) and Shri. Charan Singh (Member Technical) has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Jindal Saw Limited (JSL), a flagship company of the P.R. Jindal Group. This decision allows for the merger of Sathavahana Ispat Limited (SIL), the Corporate Debtor, with JSL. Both JSL and SIL are listed on NSE and BSE. JSL, a leading manufacturer of submerged arc and spiral welded pipes for various industries, will benefit immensely from SIL's expertise in producing and selling pig iron and ductile iron pipes. The fusion of these two giants will amplify JSL's manufacturing capabilities, solidifying its position within the industry.

NCLT Bengaluru Initiates Insolvency Proceedings Against Mantri Developers Ltd., A Mantri Group Company

Case Title: M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v M/s. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: C.P. (IB) No.94/BB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Shri T. Krishnavalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Ahsan Ahmad has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”).

Section 30(4) Of IBC Directory In Nature, Does Not Compel COC To Distribute Payments Based On Value Of Security: 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 held that Section 30(4) of IBC is directory in nature and does not compel the CoC to distribute payments to creditors based on the value of security held by them. The Bench has dismissed the application filed by a Financial Creditor claiming that resolution fund must be distributed as per voting share in CoC and not as per the kind of charge a financial creditor has on the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

The Bench has reiterated that a dissenting secured creditor cannot seek a higher amount to be paid to them on the basis of the value of their security interest by pleading dissatisfaction.

NCLT Urges Petitioners To Comply With Regulation 20(1a) Of Information Utility Regulations

File No.: 25/02/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has released a Circular dated 03.04.2023, requesting the Petitioners in Sections 7 and 9 of IBC proceedings to produce the record of Information Utility (NeSL certificate) for effective hearing of their case and comply with Regulation 20(1A) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Information Utilities) Regulation, 2016 (“Information Utility Regulation”). When a Petitioner files a petition under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, (“IBC”), the Regulation 20(1A) requires the Petitioners to produce the record of Information Utility (NeSL certificate) at the earliest for effective hearing of their case.

In Absence Of A Charge Being Registered For Corporate Guarantee, The Appellant Could Not Be Treated As A Secured Financial Creditor; NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Intec Capital Ltd. vs Arvind Gaudana

Case No.: CP(IB) 561 of 2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical) and Dr. Madan B. Gosavi (Judicial) dealt with the interpretation of a ‘secured’ financial creditor under the IBC. The tribunal held that the applicant in the present case, could not be considered as a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor as no charge had been created by him, on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website.

NCLT Mumbai Bench Re-Constituted W.E.F 10th April 2023

File No.: 10/03/2022-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has released a Circular dated 10.04.2023, notifying that the Bench of Court No. 1 in NCLT Mumbai has been re-constituted with effect from 10.04.2023.

The re-constituted NCLT Mumbai Bench shall comprise of:

NCLT Mumbai, Court Room No. 1 (First Half)

1. Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member)
2. Ms. Anju Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member)

NCLT New Delhi Rejects Section 9 Application For Initiation Of CIRP Against G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited

Case Title: Connecting People of India vs G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited.

Case No.: COMPANY PETITION IB (IBC)/ 89(ND)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench, comprising Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member) and Shri P.S.N. Prasad (Judicial Member), has rejected an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited. The Tribunal observed that the amount of default was Rs. 4,15,08,378.56 and the date of defaults were stated to be 05.11.2020 and 25.11.2020. Since the dates of default were after 25^th March 2020, the petition was barred by Section 10A of IBC, 2016.

NCLT Mumbai Rejects Section 9 Application For Initiation Of CIRP Against Elder Projects Limited

Case Title: Nanz Med Science Pharma Private Limited vs Elder Projects Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 245/MB/C-I/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench, comprising Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member) and Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member), has rejected an application under Section 9 of IBC seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Elder Projects Limited. The Bench observed that the date of default was beyond 25th March 2020 and the petition fell within the purview of Section 10A of IBC. Also, the Operational Creditor failed to mention the date of default in Part 4 of the Petition.

Entries Made In Balance Sheet Amounts To Acknowledgement Of Debt As Per Section 18 Of Limitation Act, 1963: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: M/s SKC Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs M/s EOS Hospitality Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: IB-356/(ND)/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application filed under Section 9 of IBC has reiterated that entries made in the Balance Sheet amounts to acknowledgement of debt as per section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.

Interest Bearing Refundable Advance Paid Under An MoU Which Has Lost Legal Force Can Still Be Categorized As Financial Debt: NCLT Ahmedabad

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has categorized an advance amount as Financial Debt which was paid under an Memorandum of Understanding with no legal force and which was refundable with an interest @ 18% p.a.

The Tribunal remarked that it is neither dwelling into whether the interest is payable or not as the MoU has no legal force, nor is it dwelling on whether the debt is secured or unsecured. It is only deciding on whether the said advance should be treated as operational debt or financial debt. The Tribunal has directed the IRP to consider the claims of the Applicants as Financial Debts.

Nature Of Decree Depends On The Nature Of Transaction From Which The Decretal Debt Has Arisen: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: Mr. J.K Shah and Anr vs Tridhaatu Builders LLP

Case No.:CP (IB) No.388/MB-IV/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has reiterated that nature of decree depends on the nature of transaction from which the decretal debt has arisen. The Tribunal refused to categorize the failure to return an amount advanced in lieu of a residential flat as “Operational Debt”.

NCLT Mumbai Order Dissolution Of Proterra Investment Advisors Private Limited Under Section 59 Of IBC

Case Title: Proterra Investment Advisors India Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.39/MB-IV/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has ordered for dissolution of Proterra Investment Advisors Private Limited (“Company”) under Section 59 of IBC. The Company was neither carrying any business and nor earning any profits. The Board of Directors of the Company resolved to voluntarily liquidate the Company and its two directors filed an affidavit stating that the Company neither has any debt nor was being liquidated to defraud any person. Accordingly, the Company moved a petition before NCLT through its Liquidator for initiation of voluntary liquidation proceedings.

NCLT New Delhi Orders Liquidation Of M/S. Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd Under Section 33 Of IBC

Case Name : M/s. Five Ess Precision Components Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd

Case No. Company Petition No. (IB) – 822/(ND) /2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has ordered for Liquidation of M/s. Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”). After initiation of CIRP, the CoC resolved to Liquidate the Corporate Debtor with 100% voting as the Corporate Debtor was not a Going Concern since the last 2 years before the initiation of CIRP. All the assets of the Corporate Debtor had already been realized by Hero Fincorp Ltd under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before commencement of CIRP.

NCLT Notifies Changed Timings For New Delhi Benches W.E.F. 21 April 2023

File No.: 10/03/2022-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), has released a Circular dated 20.04.2023 notifying that the timings of certain courts of NCLT New Delhi Bench have been changed. The changes are applicable from 21.04.2023 onwards.

The timing of following courts at NCLT New Delhi Bench has been modified:

NCLT New Delhi, Court Room No. III (Second Half)

1. Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member)

NCLT New Delhi, Court Room No. VI (First Half)

1. Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Rahul Prasad Bhatnagar (Technical Member)

NCLT New Delhi Orders Liquidation Of Samtex Desinz Private Limited Under Section 33 Of IBC

Case Title: Orator Marketing Private Limited vs Samtex Desinz Private Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB) – 908/ND/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has ordered for Liquidation of Samtex Desinz Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The Corporate Debtor is a non-government company involved in dressing and dyeing of fur and manufacture of articles of fur. After being admitted into CIRP, no resolution plan was received for the Corporate Debtor and hence resolution for liquidation was passed by the CoC.

NCLT Mumbai Approves Resolution Plan Of ARCIL Lead Consortium For Unimark Remedies Limited

Case Title: ICICI Bank Limited vs Unimark Remedies Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.197/MB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has approved a 127 crore worth resolution plan of ARCIL, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Shamrock Pharmachemi (P) Ltd as consortium for Unimark Remedies Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The average Liquidation value and Fair value of the assets of the company amounted to 124.02 crores and 178.23 crores respectively. The resolution plan offered an 11.2% recovery of 1072.65 crores to the Financial Creditors amounting to 121 crores. It further offered a 1.9% recovery of 50.16 crores amounting to 1 crore to Operational Creditors. The resolution plan further offered a 45.24% recovery of 11.05 crores amounting to 5 crores towards workmen and employee dues.

NCLT Mumbai Approves M/S Steel Line’s Resolution Plan For J-Marks Exim (India) Private Limited

Case Title: Punjab National Bank vs J-Marks Exim (India) Private Limited

Case No.: CP No. (IB) 2176/ (MB)/ C-IV/ 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has approved a 8.91 crore Resolution Plan of M/s Steel Line (India) Private Limited for J-Marks Exim (India) Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The Resolution Plan offered a 14.9% recovery of 53.48 crores to the Secured Financial Creditor amounting to 7.98 crores. It further offered Rs. 18.71 Lakhs in total for claims of operational creditors, other creditors and payment towards statutory duties including Income Tax and Service Tax.

Poaching Of Employees By The Operational Creditor Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of Pre-Existing Dispute: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: India Medtronic Private Limited vs Healthcare Associates Private Limited

Case No. C.P. (IB) No. 41/KB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, comprising Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has refused to term poaching of employees by the Operational Creditor as a pre-existing dispute. Even though the Corporate Debtor had blamed the Operational Creditor for causing business losses due to poaching of its employees, this action cannot be called a pre-existing dispute as it did not fit the definition of genuine dispute given under the Supreme Court judgment of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, the Tribunal held.

Different Work Orders Can Be Clubbed To Satisfy The Minimum Threshold Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: S. V. R Enterprises vs Netizen Engineering Private Limited

Case No: CP (IB) No.88/MB-IV/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has reiterated that debts arising from different work orders can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit. Reliance was placed on the NCLAT judgment of M/s. A2 Interiors Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (2021) SCC online NCLT 438 wherein it was held that separate claims can be part of single application.

Financial Creditors As Minority Debenture Holder Entitled To Initiate CIRP Irrespective Of Presence Of Debenture Trustee: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Clearwater Capital Partners Singapore Fund IV Private Limited and Anr vs Rajesh Estates and Nirman Private Limited

Case No.: C.P.(IB) 560 OF 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member), has held the Debenture Trustee is not the only person empowered to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(“CIRP”), even though the Financial Creditors were Minority Debenture Holders. It was further observed that Section 71(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 construes Debenture Trustee as one who shall protect the interests of Debenture Holders. It was observed that even though Financial Creditors are Minority Debenture Holders, the Debenture Trustee is not the only person empowered to initiate an action.

IBC-NCLT Chandigarh Approves Resolution Plan For Haryana Telecom Limited

Case Title: Parivartan Investment and Finance Company vs Haryana Telecom limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.515/Chd/Chd/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chandigarh bench, comprising of Shri Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Shri Subrata Kumar Dash (Technical Member) has approved a Rs. 25 crore worth resolution plan of Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Mehlawat for Haryana Telecom Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The resolution plan offered a 15.33% recovery of 8.20 crores to the Secured Financial Creditors amounting to 1.25 crores. It further offered a 24.10% recovery of 86.63 crores amounting to 20.88 crores to Operational Creditors.

IBC-NCLT Chennai Approves Resolution Plan For Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Case Title: CA M. Suresh Kumar (RP of Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Case No: TPC/1/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai bench, comprising of Shri Ramalingam Sudhakar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sameer Kakar (Technical Member) has approved a Rs. 105.30 crore worth resolution plan of Mr. M.K. Rajagopalan for Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”).

The final settlement involved sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor through the resolution plan and the remaining assets called the “Leasehold Assets” would undergo Liquidation, which were treated as “Excluded Assets” by the CoC. The Liquidation Value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor was determined to be Rs. 91.87 crores. The Liquidation Value of the Leasehold Land was determined to be Rs. 544.97 crores. The resolution plan offered a 0.0023% recovery of Rs. 39,274 crores to the Secured Financial Creditors amounting to Rs. 100.80 crores. It did not offer any recovery to Unsecured Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors.

NCLT Chennai Orders Dissolution Of M/S Pillar Industries India Private Limited Under Section 59 Of IBC

Case Title: M/s Pillar Industries India Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB)/ 80(CHE)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai bench, comprising of Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (Judicial Member) and Sameer Kakar (Technical Member), has ordered for dissolution of M/s Pillar Industries India Private Limited (“the Company”) under section 59 of IBC. The Company filed a petition before NCLT Chennai through its Liquidator for initiation of voluntary liquidation proceedings. The Company was incorporated on 11.03.2020 but it was not able to commence business operations due to COVID-19 pandemic. There were 2 directors of the company who had infused capital in it and had given a declaration of solvency dated 16.08.2021. The assets of the Company amounted to Rs. 8,86,42,273 and the Company had no debts.

HIGH COURT

Karnataka High Court Stays Insolvency Proceedings Against Mantri Developers Ltd

Case Title: Mr. Sushil Mantri v The Registrar (NCLT Bengaluru) & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 7706/2023

The High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has stayed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) initiated against Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru for a period of 3 weeks until NCLAT hears the appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. is a Mr. Sushil Mantri promoted company and a part of Mantri Group of Companies. It is engaged in the business of real estate development and has various residential, retail and hospitality projects in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Pune and Chennai.

IBC-Gujarat High Court Stays The Order Of IBBI Disciplinary Committee

Case title: Bhupendra Singh Rajput v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6988 of 2023

The Gujarat High Court Bench, comprising of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, while adjudicating a petition filed in Bhupendra Singh Rajput v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), has stayed the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”), whereby the registration of an Insolvency Professional was suspended over alleged violations of the IBC provisions. The ground of challenge was that the coram of Disciplinary Committee comprised of only one Member, which contravened Section 220(1) of IBC.