Assets Of Subsidiary Company Cannot Be Dealt With In CIRP Of Holding Company: NCLATDelhi

Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) v Roma Unicon Designex Consortium

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 180 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the assets of the Subsidiary Company cannot be dealt with in the CIRP of Holding Company. A parcel of land was leased by Greater NOIDA Authority to the subsidiary of Corporate Debtor (Holding Company). In the CIRP of Corporate Debtor, the approved Resolution Plan proposed to transfer the subsidiary’s land to the Successful Resolution Applicant, without obtaining Greater NOIDA Authority’s consent. The Bench has set aside the orders approving the resolution plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant.

“Misconceived, Not Maintainable”: NCLAT Delhi Dismisses AppealFiled By IBBI

Case Title: Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India v GTL Infrastructure & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 103 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”), challenging the dismissal of a Section 7 petition in a matter to which IBBI was not a party. The IBBI filed the appeal while contending that the petition was dismissed upon a wrong interpretation of Section 7 by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT Bench observed that IBBI is not aggrieved by the Adjudicating Authority’s order and has nothing to do with the litigation between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor.

NCLT

TDS Payments Do Not Amount To An Acknowledgement Of Debt: NCLT

Case Title: Kalpesh Jaysukh Shah versus M/s Arch Pharmalabs Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 3460/MB/2019

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 TDS (tax deducted at source) payments do not amount to an acknowledgment of debt. Reliance was placed on the NCLAT judgment in P.M. Cold Store Pvt. Ltd. v. Goouksheer Farm Fresh Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., in which it was held that the fact that the corporate debtor has paid TDS on interest payable cannot be considered as an acknowledgment in writing of the liability by the corporate debtor, and therefore, such a TDS payment will not have any effect as an acknowledgment of the debt.

NCLT Mumbai Benches Re-Constituted W.E.F 11th February 2023

File No.: 10/03/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has been re-constituted vide a Circular dated 09.02.2023 issued by NCLT. Justice Pradeep Narhari Deshmukh (Judicial Member) of NCLT Mumbai Bench has demitted office on 10.02.2023 on completion of his tenure.

The re-constituted NCLT Mumbai Benches shall comprise of:

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

1. Shri Venkata Subba Rao Hari (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member)

NCLT Mumbai, Court Room No. 2 (Second Half)

1. Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member)

NCLT Hyderabad Invokes Rule 153; Permits Filing Of RejoinderPost Closure Of Opportunity

Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors. v India Power Corporation Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) NO. 205/7/HDB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member), invoked its powers under Rule 153 of the NCLT Rules and permitted the Financial Creditor to file its Rejoinder, even after the opportunity to do so stood closed by an earlier order of NCLT. The Bench further held that an application to condone the delay and to receive the Rejoinder which was filed post closure of opportunity, is not in the nature of a Review Application. The Bench treated such application as an application for condonation of delay.