NCLATThere Can’t Be Discrimination Between One Class Of Creditors’; NCLAT Delhi Directs Modification Of Resolution Plan Case Title: Akashganga Processors Pvt. Ltd. v Shri Ravindra Kumar Goyal & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1148 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok...
NCLAT
Case Title: Akashganga Processors Pvt. Ltd. v Shri Ravindra Kumar Goyal & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1148 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has directed the Successful Resolution Applicant to allocate funds to Operational Creditors in the Resolution Plan, who were left unpaid while other Operational Creditors were proposed to be paid. “However, when the Successful Resolution Applicant was making payment to other two Operation Creditors, there cannot be any discrimination between payment of one class of Creditors.”
The Resolution Plan was earlier rejected by the NCLT for being violative of Section 30(2)(e) and 30(2)(f) of IBC. However, the NCLAT permitted its implementation post modification.
Case Title: Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR) v Roadwings International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 887 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has stayed the insolvency proceedings against Container Corporation of India Ltd., which is a navratna enterprise of Government of India. The alleged default was based on an Arbitral Award which was challenged before the High Court and the matter is pending adjudication.
Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR) is a public sector company, engaged in transportation and handling of containers and is listed with the NSE and BSE on stock exchange.
HIGH COURT
IBC | No Writ Can’t Be Issued To Creditor, Free To Proceed Against Personal Guarantor Under IBC : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.
Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 639 | W.P.(C) 3293/2023 & CM APPL 12815/2023
The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, has refused to issue a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the creditor from approaching the NCLT under Section 95 of IBC against the personal guarantor.
On the issue of whether a writ of prohibition can be issued to prevent creditor from approaching NCLT, the Bench opined that when an alternative remedy exists, then the Petitioner must prove, (i) that the proceedings or actions being taken are wholly without jurisdiction; and (ii) as to why the alternate forum must be deprived of an opportunity to decide upon its own jurisdiction.
IBC | Sending Demand Notice Under Rule 7(1) To Personal Guarantor Cannot Be Termed As Arbitrary: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.
Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 639 | W.P.(C) 3293/2023 & CM APPL 12815/2023
The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, has declined to quash a Demand Notice sent to a personal guarantor under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019. It has been held that mere issuance of a Demand Notice to personal guarantor does not reek of arbitrariness, since it has been done to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 95 of IBC, to agitate before the NCLT that there is a debt owed by the personal guarantor to the creditor.
“It is not the case that the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted by the concerned NCLT. The petitioner‟s claim of the guarantor getting a right to be heard at a belated stage, is not sufficient to entertain the present petition. The legislature, in its wisdom, thought it fit to give the right of hearing at belated stage. Indeed, if in the present case the petition is entertained, it would subvert the procedure laid down under the IBC. The respondent in turn would be denied the opportunity to present their case before the concerned NCLT.”
NCLT
Go Airlines | NCLT Delhi Imposes Moratorium On Leased Aircrafts, Categorize Them As ‘Property’ U/S 3(27) Of IBC
Case Title: Go Airlines (India) Limited
Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-264(PB)/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has held the aircrafts leased to Go Airlines (India) Ltd. by Lessors come within the definition of ‘Property’ under Section 3(27) of IBC and thus moratorium can be imposed over leased aircrafts.
The Bench observed that leasing aircrafts in aviation industry is a prevalent practice. When a Corporate Debtor under IBC is in Airlines business, the act of taking way aircrafts from the such Corporate Debtor would lead to corporate death.
Go Airlines| NCLT Delhi Permits Go Airlines To Resume Operations
Case Title: Go Airlines (India) Limited
Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-264(PB)/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has permitted Go Airlines to operate the leased aircrafts in order to maintain the company’s status as a going concern.
While considering the Lessor’s plea to refrain Go Airlines from operating or flying the leased aircrafts, the Bench observed that the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA”) has not deregistered the aircrafts. Therefore, it is open for Go Airlines to resume flight operations. In order to maintain Go Airlines as a going concern, the Bench has permitted it to operate the aircrafts. However, the safety norms prescribed by the Regulators have to be adhered.