NCLT Go Airlines | NCLT Issues Notice On Application Filed By RP Seeking Refund Of Cancelled Ticket Amount To Passengers 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 (President) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has...
NCLT
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 (President) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has issued notice in an application field by the Resolution Professional of Go Airlines, seeking permission to make refund to the passengers whose tickets were cancelled. The notice has been issued to the respondents namely, Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”), to enter appearance and file their reply.
Prior to CIRP initiation, Go Airlines was constrained to cancel 4,118 flights with 77,500 passengers in a span of thirty days as its flights were grounded. No refund was made to the passengers at that point of time.
In a hearing held on 25.07.2023, the NCLT had permitted Go Airlines to resume flight operations. Thereafter, an application was filed by Resolution Professional of Go Airlines, seeking permission to make refund to those passengers of Go Airlines whose tickets were cancelled.
NCLT Urges Parties To Take Follow Up Action On Pending Applications/Petition In E-Filing System Within 21 Days
File No. 25/02/2023-NCLT
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has issued a Circular dated 04.08.2023, intimating that the petitions/applications filed through E-Filing prior to 30.06.2023 are pending in the system without any follow up. The NCLT has urged the concerned parties/advocates to take a follow up action and prosecute the same within a period of 21 days (till 25.08.2023). Failing which these pending files would be treated as ‘not pursued’ and get archived.
NCLT Bengaluru Admits Café Coffee Day’s Parent Company Into Insolvency
Case Title: Indus Ind Bank Limited v M/s Coffee Day Global Limited
Case No.: C.P (IB) No. 132/BB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Justice (Retd.) T Krishnavalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s Coffee Day Global Ltd., which is the parent company of the Coffee Day Group and Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd., which runs a multinational coffeeshop named ‘Café Coffee Day’. Mr. Shailendra Ajmera has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
NCLT New Delhi Admits ‘Brij Gopal Construction Co.’ Into Insolvency
Case Title: M/s Geocon Infra Pvt. Ltd. v M/S. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: IB – 514(ND)/2022
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 initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Corporate Debtor is a company engaged in the business of infrastructure development works, such as Roads & Highways, Sewerage, Storm Water, Drain Water Supply, Works Management and Housing Projects. It is one of the top Contracting Companies in the State of Haryana.
NCLT Kochi Imposes Rs. 50,000/- Cost On GST Department For Raiding Corporate Debtor During Moratorium
Case Title: Kosamattam Finance Ltd. v Mangomeadows Agriculture Pleasure Land Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CP (IBC)/06/KOB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench, comprising of Shri P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Goods and Services Tax Department (GST) for raiding the premises of Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period and seizing account documents. The Bench held the raid and seizure of documents by GST Department during CIRP is violative of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC. The summons issued to the Resolution Professional by the GST Department have also been set aside.
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Is A Secured Creditor Under Sec. 3(30) Of IBC: NCLT Delhi
Case Title: VMS Equipment v Primrose Infratech Private Limited
Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-995(ND)/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has held that the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) is a secured operational creditor under Section 3(30) of IBC.
The definition of Security Interest in Section 3(31) of IBC includes a ‘charge’ and as per the Supreme Court judgment in State Tax Officer (1) v Rainbow Papers Limited, the definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority. Therefore, the charge created in favour of GNIDA is a security interest and thus GNIDA is a secured creditor.
No Inconsistency Between IBC And Sec. 13 & 13A Of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act: NCLT Delhi
Case Title: VMS Equipment v Primrose Infratech Private Limited
Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-995(ND)/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has held that there is no inconsistency between IBC and Sections 13 and 13A of the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. If security interest was created in favour of Greater NOIDA Authority prior to commencement of moratorium/CIRP, then IBC would not override UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 in terms of Section 238 of IBC.
“Since, in the instant case, the security interest of GNIDA was created by virtue of the operation of law prior to the commencement of CIRP/Moratorium, we see no inconsistency between the provision of Sections 13 and 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and IBC 2016, hence the provisions of Section 238 of IBC, 2016 do not get attracted to.”