Half Yearly Digest Of IBC Cases : January To June,2024
Sachika Vij
14 July 2024 8:30 PM IST
Supreme CourtIBC | Moratorium Under S 14 No Bar To Execute Decree Against Directors/Officers Of Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court Case Title: Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) vs. M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 63 The Supreme Court has held that the imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency...
Supreme Court
Case Title: Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) vs. M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 63
The Supreme Court has held that the imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has no effect on the execution of a decree against the Directors or Officers of the Company (Corporate Debtor), which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under IBC.
When the Company was admitted into CIRP, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) declined to permit execution of a decree against the Company and also its Directors/Officers. The Bench held that the protection of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC is only available to the Company and not to its Directors or Officers, thus the execution of decree can be done against them even during moratorium.
The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, has held, “Therefore, we are of the view that only because there is a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against the company, it cannot be said that no proceedings can be initiated against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9(the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) for execution, provided that they are otherwise liable to abide by and comply with the order, which is passed against the company. The protection of the moratorium will not be available to the directors/officers of the company.”
Case Title: Bharti Airtel Limited and Another vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 11
The Supreme Court has held statutory set off or insolvency set off is not applicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Further, Regulation 29 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (“Liquidation Regulations”), which provides for mutual dealing and set off, does not apply to Part II of the IBC which deals with CIRP.
The principle of Set-off recognizes the right of a debtor to adjust the smaller claim owed to him against the larger claim payable to his creditor.
The Bench has also carved out two exceptions to the application of statutory or insolvency set off to CIRP proceedings. First being, when a party is entitled to contractual set-off, on the date which is effective before or on the date of commencement of CIRP. Secondly, in cases of 'equitable set-off' when the claim and counter claim in the form of set-off are linked and connected on account of one or more transactions that can be treated as one.
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, has observed that Section 30(2)(b) does not support the plea of insolvency set-off, since the provision deals with the amounts to be paid to creditors and not amount payable by creditors to Corporate Debtor. Further, the specific legislative mandate given in Chapter II Part II of IBC, the provisions of IBC relating to CIRP do not recognize the principle of insolvency set-off. “We would not extend it by implication, when the legislature has not accepted applicability of mutual set-off at the initial stage, that is, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process stage.”
Case Title: DBS Bank Ltd Singapore vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 6
The Supreme Court has referred to larger bench the issue whether a dissenting financial creditor is to be paid the minimum value of its security interest as per the Insolvency and the Bankruptcy Code 2016.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, in the case DBS Bank Ltd Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd and another, referred the following question :
Whether Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161, as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest?
The bench differed from the view expressed by a coordinate bench in the 2021 judgment in the case India Resurgence ARC Private Limited v. Amit Metaliks Limited & Another which held that a dissenting secured creditor cannot challenge an approved resolution plan contending that higher amount should have been paid to it based on the security interest held by it over the corporate debtor.
The bench in the instant case observed that there was a contradiction between India Resurgence ARC Private Ltd with the ratio decidendi of the decisions of the three-Judge Bench judgments in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta(2019) and Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association vs. NBCC (India) Ltd(2021).
Case Title: Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Export Import Bank of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1073
The Supreme Court has set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) whereby the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) was directed to admit a petition under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, has held that it was inappropriate for the NCLAT to direct the NCLT to admit the application under Section 7 of IBC straightaway without an evaluation of the rival contentions on merits. The Bench has directed the NCLT to determine whether the petition under Section 7 of IBC is liable to be admitted, after hearing the parties.
Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Versus Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7590-7591 OF 2023
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, has observed that ordinarily feasibility and viability of a resolution plan is best decided by the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”), however, when the resolution plan envisages the use of asset/land not owned by the Corporate Debtor but by a third party, which is a statutory body, bound by its own rules and regulations having statutory flavor, then there has to be a closer examination of the plan's feasibility.
Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Versus Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s).7590-7591/2023
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, has observed that the claim submitted by the Resolution Applicant (“RA”) under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) cannot be rejected/overlooked merely on the fact that the claim submitted appears to be in a different form other than the form in which the claim needs to be submitted.
The creditor submitted a claim to the Resolution Professional under Form C of Regulation 8 of CIRP Regulations 2016, as a financial creditor. The claim of the resolution applicant was rejected by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”), National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) on the note that the resolution applicant being Operational Creditor needs to submit their claim under Form B of Regulation 7 of CIRP Regulations 2016, as Operational Creditor.\
The Bench held, No doubt, the record indicates that the appellant was advised to submit its claim in Form B (meant for operational creditor) in place of Form C (meant of financial creditor). But, assuming the appellant did not heed the advice, once the claim was submitted with proof, it could not have been overlooked merely because it was in a different Form.”
When Does Debt Become Financial Debt & Operational Debt Under IBC? Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr. Versus Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 331
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, has held that debt would be treated as an operational debt only if the claim subject matter of the debt has some connection or co-relation with the 'service' rendered by the creditor to the debtor.
"Where one party owes a debt to another and when the creditor is claiming under a written agreement/ arrangement providing for rendering 'service', the debt is an operational debt only if the claim subject matter of the debt has some connection or co-relation with the 'service' subject matter of the transaction.", the Bench opined.
The Court summarized the conclusions as follows :
· There cannot be a debt within the meaning of sub- section (11) of section 5 of the IB Code unless there is a claim within the meaning of sub-section (6) of section 5 of thereof;
· The test to determine whether a debt is a financial debt within the meaning of sub-section (8) of section 5 is the existence of a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. The cases covered by categories (a) to (i) of sub-section (8) must satisfy the said test laid down by the earlier part of sub-section (8) of section 5;
· While deciding the issue of whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt arising out of a transaction covered by an agreement or arrangement in writing, it is necessary to ascertain what is the real nature of the transaction reflected in the writing; and
· Where one party owes a debt to another and when the creditor is claiming under a written agreement/ arrangement providing for rendering 'service', the debt is an operational debt only if the claim subject matter of the debt has some connection or co- relation with the 'service' subject matter of the transaction.
Case Title: Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India Versus Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 317
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while observing that the offences committed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) would be tried by the Special Court established under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the sessions judge would have the power to issue process against the accused, has upheld the issuance of process by the sessions judge to the accused.
The Court rejected the contention of the accused that the Sessions Judge wasn't empowered to issue process to the accused for the offences punishable up-to two years under the IBC but the judicial magistrate.
Reversing the High Court's decision, the Bench interpreted the scheme of Section 236(1) of IBC to hold that the power to try offences punishable under the IBC was vested in the special court by 'legislation by incorporation', meaning thereby the intention of the Parliament was clear to vest the power to issue summons upon the special court consisting of a person qualified to be a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, the subsequent amendments to the Section 435 of Companies Act, 2013 authorizing judicial magistrates to issue summons for offences punishable up to two years under the IBC would not have any effect on Section 236 of IBC.
Case Title: Deccan Value Investors L.P. & Anr. Versus Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 265
The Supreme Court has reiterated that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) then it becomes impermissible for the resolution applicant to withdraw or modify the resolution plan.
The Bench Comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta referred to the Judgment of Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another, where the Supreme Court elaborated and set out several reasons why the resolution applicant cannot be permitted to withdraw or modify the resolution plan after approval by the Committee of Creditors, and before an order under Section 31(1) of the Code is passed.
The court observed that due to the absence of any statutory provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, it is impermissible for the resolution applicant to modify or withdraw the resolution plan after the plan was approved by the CoC.
“The effect of approval by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) of the Code makes the resolution plan binding on all stakeholders, even those who are not members of the Committee of Creditors. The scrutiny by the adjudicating authority for grant of approval in terms of Section 31(1), read with other provisions of the Code, is limited and restricted. It does not allow or permit the resolution applicant to unilaterally amend/modify or withdraw the resolution plan post approval by the Committee of Creditors.”, the court said.
Case Title: Ayush Agarwal vs Jaypee Infratech Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5185/2024
The Supreme Court of India is set to determine whether the non-filing of a claim during the insolvency resolution process of a builder can result in the rejection of a homebuyer's claim for allotment of apartment.
The case surrounds the insolvency process of Jaypee Infratech Limited. Its resolution plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal and was subsequently challenged in the Appellate Tribunal. In the main appeal, several intervention applications were filed including the one filed by the present appellant, an allottee of unit in Kosmos. The same was supposed to be developed by Jaypee.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, while issuing notice in the instant appeal, also added:
“We clarify that the issue of notice in the present appeal will not come in the way of execution/implementation of the resolution plan. Allotment of the unit to the appellant, if made, will be subject to the outcome of the present appeal and the right and claim of the appellant.”
Case Title: Manan Chopra and Ors vs Soni Realtors Pvt Ltd.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5452/2024
The Supreme Court of India (on May 06) issued notice to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, inter-alia, on the requirement to obtain a certified copy of the order and attach the same with the appeal.
The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta has issued notice considering that there is “considerable ambiguity” in certain issues concerning the service of the orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, uploading of orders on the website, and the one mentioned above.
"We are also inclined to issue notice to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, as there appears to be considerable ambiguity concerning service of the orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, uploading of orders on the website and also the requirement to obtain a certified copy of the order and enclose the same with the appeal."
In view of this, the Insolvency Board has been asked to examine whether the process requires any clarification, modification, or simplification.
HIGH COURTS
Case Title: CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
The Madras High Court while dismissing a challenge made to Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which gives powers to the Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA) to monitor the conduct of the Insolvency professional, observed that merely because the provision gave powers to both the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the IPA, it would not become arbitrary or give a presumption of double jeopardy.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conferment of powers to the IBBI and IPA by itself would not amount to conferring unbridled power as the regulation and bye-laws provided for checks and balances. Noting that there was no excessive power being granted, the court added that Section 204 of IBC was only an enabling provision and there was no constitutional infirmity in the provision.
Case Title: Purushottam Prabhakar Chavan Versus Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3477 Of 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that lender bank registration with the Central Registry of Securitisation and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) has first priority over Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST) (DCST) against proceeds of enforcement under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
The bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the Lender Bank had first priority in enforcement against the Walkeshwar Flat with effect from January 24, 2020, having been the first to register with CERSAI, which was done on January 2, 2020. The bench noted that Encore ARC, which conducted the auction on February 28, 2023, acquired the entitlement to priority from the lender bank along with the assignment of the loans to the borrowers with attendant security interests on March 21, 2020.
Case Title: M/s Kerala Chamber Of Commerce And Industry vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: CRL.MC No. 3605 of 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that prima facie, a Resolution Professional appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy ('IB') Code for carrying the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') of the Company cannot be hauled up in a criminal proceeding initiated against the Company.
Winding Up Proceedings On Nascent Stage, To Be Transferred To NCLT: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Arabian Oilfield Suppliers & Services vs Greka Drilling (India) Limited
Case No.: CO.PET. 88/2016 & CO.APPL. 381/2016, CO.APPL. 382/2016, CO.APPL. 1514/2018
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that winding up proceedings pending before High Courts, which are at a nascent stage and have not progressed to an advanced stage, ought to be transferred to the NCLT.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal
Case No.: WP(C) No. 39185 of 2022
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, has observed that an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kochi Bench was 'preposterous' and 'untenable'.
NCLT Kochi had held an Assessment Order by Kerala Value Added Tax ('KVAT') Works Contract Authorities against Albana Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2) to be void ab initio in violation of Section 14(1)(a) of IBC.
“The Company Law Tribunal has no power and authority under the IBC to declare an assessment order as void ab initio and non-est in law. Such an order only reflects the competence of the persons who are manning such an important Tribunal. The Order shows the lack of basic understanding of the law. Instead of considering the application by the 2nd respondent for permission to file an appeal against the assessment order, the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, has assumed the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to declare the assessment order as void ab initio.”
Case Title: Amit Dineshchandra Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 10
The Gujarat High Court bench comprising of Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen, has observed that the Lender Banks must provide a reasonable opportunity to the Borrower by furnishing a copy of Audit Reports and allowing him to submit a representation before classifying the account as fraud.
In 2021, the Corporate Debtor (Company) was admitted into a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Code, 2016. The Company's loan accounts were declared as fraud by the consortium banks.
Case Title: Shantanu Prakash vs State Bank Of India & Ors
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1730/2024, CM APPL. 7177/2024 & CM APPL. 11269/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the concerned party must be provided with all requisite documents that form the basis of Show Cause Notices ('SCNs') by the banks. It held that this enables the party to submit a proper reply and address all allegations effectively. Without access to these underlying documents, the procedure of issuing an SCN and filing a response would be rendered meaningless.
Case Title: Sundaresh Bhat vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board of India
Case No.: W.P.(C) 14389/2022
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that official liquidators must adhere to ethical principles and demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fairness to discharge their duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title: Surya Exim Limited Thro Director Bhawani Singh Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 42; R/Special Civil Application No. 1195 Of 2023
The Gujarat High Court bench of comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta, has quashed the demand notice and assessment order passed by the Income Tax department against Corporate Debtor, in the absence of any claim not forming part of the resolution plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”).
The NCLT approved the resolution plan of the SRA for the Corporate Debtor. Post approval, the Income Tax department raised demand notice and passed assessment orders against the Corporate Debtor. These tax demands did not exist prior to approval of SRA's resolution plan and hence no claim was submitted before the Resolution Professional in their respect. Accordingly, the demand notice has been quashed by the High Court.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. vs Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & Ors
Case No: IA No. GA/2/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sugato Majumdar held that after the insolvency proceeding is over and the resolution plan is duly approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, the corporate entity starts with a clean slate on rejuvenation.
Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction in the matter of ICICI Bank Limited vs Classic Diamonds (India) Limited
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 25210 of 2022 in Company Petition No. 317 of 2012
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja held that as long as no irreversible actions, such as actual sales of immovable or movable properties, have occurred, the Company Court retains the discretion to transfer proceedings to the NCLT.
Case Title: Anurodh Mittal vs Rehat Trading Company
Case No.: Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 17782 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia has held that merely because of the initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No.29845 of 2022 and WMP.No.29233 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Seshasayee held that though the Adjudicating Authority may not substitute the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors ('CoC'), however, it must exercise jurisdiction akin to revisional jurisdiction to assess the correctness of the actions taken by the CoC.
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No.29845 of 2022 and WMP.No.29233 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Seshasayee held that an MSME Corporate Debtor cannot exploit the Clean Slate Theory by withholding information, especially when its management, which remained in control, had a duty to disclose such information.
Case Title: M/s Reliance Infratel Limited & Anr. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 238 of 2023
The Meghalaya High Court has held that a State authority cannot compel a successful resolution applicant under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) to pay past electricity dues, if the State authority has not made any claim in respect of its dues under approved resolution plan.
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No.29845 of 2022 and WMP.No.29233 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Seshasayee held that the Clean State Theory only protects the third party – Successful Resolution Applicant ('SRA') and not the suspended board of the Corporate Debtor from uncertainties of future claims.
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No.29845 of 2022 and WMP.No.29233 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Seshasayee urged the Parliament to assess and evaluate the working efficiency of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') and questioned whether the Parliament has considered the general recovery percentage achieved from a successful corporate debtor resolution process.
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No.29845 of 2022 and WMP.No.29233 of 2022
The Madras High Court comprising of Justice N. Seshasayee held that every claim by operational creditors involves a right to their property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Uphealth Holdings, INC. vs Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim & Ors.
Case No.: C.O. No. 241 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court single judge bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that without a comprehensive cross-border insolvency framework, Indian courts do not recognize or enforce moratorium orders from non-reciprocating countries, such as the U.S., and thus are not obligated to stay ongoing suits due to such foreign proceedings.
Madras High Court: The Successful Working Of IBC Rests On Diligence And Integrity Of IRP And RP
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No.29845 of 2022 and WMP.No.29233 of 2022
The Madras High Court stressed and defined the role and responsibilities of the Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') and Resolution Professional ('RP') to act fairly and transparently to secure the interests of all the stakeholders, particularly operational creditors.
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka has held that the determination of the title of the shares is within the domain of the Civil Court and not the NCLT/NCLAT. The bench held that Section 430 of the Companies Act comes into play only after the title to the shares is decided.
Case Title: Cherukuri Ramakrishna vs Sandhya Hotels Private Limited
Case No.: C.C.C.A. No.57 OF 2023
Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No.29845 of 2022 and WMP.No.29233 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Seshasayee held that the Clean State Theory shall not apply to undisclosed creditors to protect them from the deliberate non-disclosure or silence of the suspended board of directors or negligence of Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') or Resolution Professional ('RP') towards disclosing their claims.
NCLAT
Case Title: Sanjeev Mitla vs Mr. Madhusudhan Rao Gonugunta & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 387 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has directed the Liquidator to convene a meeting of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) to re-consider the compromise scheme submitted by a shareholder, in the presence of such shareholder.
A shareholder of the Corporate Debtor had submitted a compromise scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 to the Liquidator. The Liquidator placed the Scheme before the Stakeholders Consultation Committee in absence of the shareholder and the same was rejected. The shareholder submitted that it could not persuade the SCC in respect of the Scheme due to his absence.
Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Mr. Sumit Binani, RP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 385 / 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the Resolution Professional is empowered under Section 25(1) of IBC to reject the proposal of Committee of Creditors ('CoC') for renewal of Bank Guarantees provided by the Corporate Debtor.
Case Title: CA Jai Narayan Gupta (Liquidator of Barcle Enterprises Limited) vs. Radhasiriya Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1473 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the Liquidator is entitled to his fee under Section 34 of IBC and Regulation 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and Cost under Regulation 2B of Liquidation Regulations.
Case Title: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain vs. Navin Kumar Upadhyay & Anr
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 930-931 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that Resolution Professional cannot be directed to hand over the charge of Corporate Debtor to the Ex-management, once CIRP has stayed.
The Bench opined that handing over the charge of the Corporate Debtor to Ex-management can be dangerous and the same is prone to misuse the assets and the assets shall be diminished, which may adversely affect the creditors of the Corporate Debtor in case of stay of the CIRP.
Resolution Professional Can't Question COC Decision Of Replacement: NCLAT Delhi
Case title: Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India Ltd (SUUTI) & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1340 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that when the Committee of Creditors (CoC) passes a resolution to replace the Resolution Professional, then it is not open for the Resolution Professional to question the reasons for its replacement and ask NCLT to adjudicate upon the reasons which persuaded the CoC to pass the resolution.
Case Title: Mr. Milan Aggarwal vs. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation and Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.231 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the Corporate Debtor cannot be absolved from its liability to discharge its Operational debt by the Insurance Company's payment to the Operational Creditor of its claim and the same cannot be a ground to reject the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') application under Section 9 of IBC.
Case Title: Hiren Meghji Bharani vs. Shankheshwar Properties Pvt. Ltd. through its Resolution Professional and Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.446 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the non-stamping of document does not render the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') petition filed to be non-maintainable when there exists other material on record to prove existence of default in the payment of debt.
Case Title: Kairav Anil Trivedi, IRP of Parenteral Drugs India Ltd. v. State Bank of India (Erstwhile CoC) & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1439 & 1440 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that when the Committee of Creditors ('CoC') has not confirmed the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP'), the IRP can be replaced by the CoC under Section 22 of IBC.
Case Title: V O Chidambaranar Port Authority vs. Shri Rajesh Chillale, RP of IndBharath Power Gencom Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 412 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), Chennai, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that there is no actual lien to invoke Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 when the goods are not in possession of the Port Authority and the claim of the Port cannot be treated as a Secured Creditor for distribution of liquidation assets under Sec. 53 of IBC.
Case title: In Style Fashion v Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1679 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has declined to initiate insolvency proceedings against Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited under Section 9 of IBC, on the premise that there is pre-existing dispute between Parties which cannot be investigated upon by NCLT or NCLAT.
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited is a part of Aditya Birla Group of companies and runs the Pantaloons showrooms.
Case Title: Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v HSA Traders & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.527 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member),
has held that the Successful Auction Purchaser in the liquidation of Corporate Debtor shall be liable to pay all dues for availing a new electricity connection, apart from the pre-CIRP electricity dues.
NCLAT Delhi: Optionally Convertible Debentures Constitute 'Financial Debt' U/s 5(8)(c) Of IBC
Case Title: Santosh Kumar vs. ASK Trusteeship Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1575 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical
Member), has held that the Optionally Convertible Debentures are Financial Debt within the meaning of Section 5(8)(c) of IBC.
When Number Of Allottees Disputed, NCLT To Decide S.7(1) Compliance Prior To Admission: NCLAT Delhi
Case title: Parikshit Madanmohan Sharma v M.S. Gopikrishnan & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 206 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that when the total number of allottees in a real estate project is disputed, then the NCLT should first decide whether the Section 7 petition has been filed by minimum number of allottees prescribed under second proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC or not.
The Bench has set aside a NCLT order whereby insolvency proceedings were initiated against a real estate developer company, without deciding the issue pertaining to compliance of Section 7(1) of IBC.
Case Title: Sandeep Gupta v JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1192 & 1193 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has terminated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of Asian Hotels (West) Ltd., which was initiated by NCLT in September 2022. The Bench has accepted the Settlement Proposal submitted by Promoters and Suspended Directors of Asian Hotels (West), wherein 100% dues of Financial Creditors along with interest and 100% dues of the Operational Creditor, Government dues and dues of employees with entire CIRP cost has been proposed to be paid.
The Asian Hotels (West) Ltd. owns the five-star hotels namely Hotel Hyatt Regency Mumbai and JW Marriott, New Delhi Aerocity (through its subsidiary).
NCLAT Chennai: CoC's Commercial Wisdom Includes Approval Of Resolution Plan Below Liquidation Value
Case Title: Mr. Ramesh Kesavan vs. CA Jasin Jose, RP SD Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins.) No. 422 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the approval of the Resolution Plan below the Liquidation value is within the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors ('CoC') as the IBC does not expressly bar that the Resolution Plan value should be over and above the Liquidation value.
NCLAT Delhi: CIRP Against Financial Service Provider Is Not Maintainable Under IBC
Case Title: Globe Capital Market Ltd. vs. Narayan Securities Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.32 of 2024 & I.A No. 62 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') application against the Financial Service Provider is not maintainable under IBC.
Case Title: Vishram Narayan Panchpor RP of Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. Committee of Creditors (Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd.) and Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1489 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that an Ex-Promoter/Director who resigned from Corporate Debtor before initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Section 10 of IBC is eligible to submit a Resolution Plan under Section 29A of IBC.
Case title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v Sandeep Goel RP for Sarvottam Realcon Pvt Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has upheld the rejection of a claim submitted by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., which was submitted to the Resolution Professional after delay of 738 days and post approval of resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor.
Case Title: Sainik Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ritesh Raghunath Mahajan, RP, Indian Sugar Manufacturing Company Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1614 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the Security of refund of the advance amount cannot change the nature of transaction into financial debt.
Case title: PRIO S.A. v Mr. Pravin R. Navandar & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1650 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that a resolution applicant who has participated in the process, has locus to object the application filed by Resolution Professional under Section 30(6) of IBC for approval of resolution plan submitted by another resolution applicant.
NCLAT Refuses Stay On Jaiprakash Associates' Insolvency Proceedings
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Sharma vs ICICI Bank Ltd & Anr
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.1158-1162 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has declined to grant a stay on the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) order admitting Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) into the insolvency resolution process. The Allahabad bench NCLT held that the restructuring proposals and the financial health of JAL were insufficient reasons to delay insolvency proceedings. In 2017, JAL was listed among the 26 major loan defaulters by the Reserve Bank of India, making it a prime candidate for bankruptcy proceedings. Other entities within the Jaypee Group, such as Jaypee Cement Corporation and Jaypee Infratech, are also undergoing insolvency proceedings.
Acceptance Of Partial Payments Doesn't Negate Default Or Legitimacy Of Insolvency Proceedings: NCLAT
Case Title: Mr. Jayesh Dani vs SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. and Anr
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 161 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the acceptance of partial payments does not negate the default or the legitimacy of the insolvency proceedings.
Case Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority vs. Monitoring Committee of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Through Anuj Jain, Secretary & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.493 of 2023 & I.A. No. 3017, 3703 of 2023 & 2535, 2548, 2660, 2669 of 2024
The National Company Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT) Delhi bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that Suraksha Realty must pay ₹1,334.31 crore to YEIDA over the next four years. This payment is intended to enable YEIDA to increase land compensation for farmers. This is the obligation which stems from a concession agreement between Jaypee and YEIDA.
NCLAT Delhi: Ex-Director Is Ineligible To Submit Resolution Plan For MSME CD Being Wilful Defaulter
Case Title: Namdev Hindurao Patil vs. Virendra Kumar Jain, Liquidator, Warana Dairy and Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 858 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2925 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) held that an ex-director is ineligible to submit a resolution plan for the resolution of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises ('MSME') Corporate Debtor based on his declaration as a wilful defaulter at the date of submitting the Resolution Plan.
Case Title: Pooja Mehra vs. Nilesh Sharma and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1511 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the belated claims by creditors cannot be considered given the time-bound nature of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') proceedings.
Case Title: Sarda Energy and Minerals Limited vs. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1395 – 1397 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) sets aside an order on violation of natural justice holding that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Mumbai) has no right to substitute its own assumption over the commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC).
NCLAT Seeks Google's Response On Appeals Against Play Store Billing Policy
Case Title: People Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors.
Case No.: Competition App. (AT) No. 7 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) admitted appeals filed by several prominent entities, including Kuku FM, Shaadi.com, Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), and People Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. This move follows their dissatisfaction with the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) decision to deny interim relief from complying with Google's contentious billing policies.
Case title: M/s Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Nitin Batra & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 96 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has upheld the rejection of an application seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 340 r/w Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) against Allottees, for allegedly filing false affidavits before NCLT in Section 7 of IBC proceedings.
Proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC can be initiated when a person intentionally gives a false statement or fabricated false evidence at any stage of the judicial proceedings. The Appellant alleged that the Section 7 petition was not filed by 100 'valid' allottees as required under Section 7(1) of IBC and the affidavits filed by Allottees were false and fabricated. The NCLT held that it cannot decide on the issue of forged affidavits and declined to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC.
Case Title: Nimai Gautam Shah, Resolution Professional of Sintex Plastics Technology Ltd. vs. RBL Bank Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.82 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have granted an exclusion/extension of time when the Resolution Plan received in the process was required to be considered to fulfill the object of the IBC.
Case title: Satish Kumar Sethi v Varsha & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 217 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has set aside an NCLT order whereby a petition under Section 9 of IBC was admitted and CIRP was initiated without serving a copy of petition to the Corporate Debtor.
The Bench has directed that the petition under Section 9 of IBC be revived before the NCLT for fresh consideration and the Corporate Debtor has been granted time to file a Reply.
Case Title: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain vs. Uno Minda Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 947 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the payment of raw material made by a third party at the instructions of Corporate Debtor or financial assistance towards working capital constitutes 'Financial Debt' under IBC.
Case title: Department of State Tax v Dar Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 73 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that a claim submitted post approval of resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) is not liable to be admitted. Accordingly, the Bench has upheld the rejection of claim of Department of State Tax, which was submitted post approval of resolution plan by CoC.
Case title: Nehru Place Hotels and Real Estates Private Limited V Sanjeev Mahajan & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1715-1716 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has set aside a direction given by the NCLT, whereby the Suspended Director was given opportunity to enter settlement during the pendency of application filed by Resolution Professional for approval of Resolution Plan. The Bench has held that since the application for approval of resolution plan is pending for over a year, the NCLT ought to have decided the same.
On 08.01.2023, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Resolution Applicant with 100% vote share and rejected the Settlement Proposal submitted by Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor with 100% vote share. Accordingly, the Resolution Professional filed an application seeking approval of Resolution plan. The Suspended Director also filed an application seeking consideration of its revised settlement proposal.
The NCLT granted another opportunity to Suspended Director to enter settlement with CoC and kept the application for approval of resolution plan in abeyance.
Case Title: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain vs. Uno Minda Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 947 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the definition of Financial Debt under Section 5(8) of IBC does not use the expression that disbursal should be made to the Corporate Debtor only.
NCLAT Delhi: NCLT Has Jurisdiction To Decide The Issue Of Trademark U/S 60(5)(c) Of IBC
Case Title: Gloster Cables Ltd. vs. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 1343 of 2019
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that NCLT has the jurisdiction to decide the whether Trademark forms part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC.
Case Title: CA Rajeev Bansal Liquidator of Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1653 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the Liquidator can pursue a Writ Petition on behalf of the Corporate Debtor when the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Liquidator to prosecute on behalf of the Corporate Debtor as per Section 33(5) of IBC.
Case Title: Mukund Rajhans (Suspended Director of Topaki Media Private Limited) vs. Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1398 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the Corporate Debtor cannot escape liability by contending that it is merely an agent and by taking recourse under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Case Title: Mukund Rajhans (Suspended Director of Topaki Media Private Limited) vs. Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1398 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that documentary evidence including postal receipt mentioning the registered address of the Corporate Debtor confirms the issuance of a Demand Notice under Section 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Case Title: Premjayanti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 124 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) evokes the Doctrine of 'Approbrate and Reprobrate' imposing a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh with allowing appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.
Case Title: Milind Kashiram Jadhav vs State Bank of India
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1589 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that part payments between the Non-Performing Asset (“NPA”) classification and loan recall notice cannot mean that loan recall notice shall constitute the relevant date of default under the IBC. Further, partial payments on the part of the Corporate Debtor cannot absolve it from default status.
Case Title: Namdev Hindurao Patil vs. Virendra Kumar Jain, Liquidator, Warana Dairy and Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 858 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2925 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) held that the relevant date to determine the ineligibility to submit a Resolution Plan is on the date on which the Resolution Plan was first submitted by the Resolution Applicant.
Case title: Katra Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, RP of Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 382 of 2024.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), has held that an application filed for replacement of Resolution Professional, which is not filed under Section 27 of IBC, can be entertained when NCLT has given a finding on the conduct of Resolution Professional or in presence of any proven fact.
The NCLAT upheld the rejection of an application filed by a minority shareholder of the Corporate Debtor seeking replacement of Resolution Professional over mere allegations.
Case: Pankaj Mehta VS M/s. Ansal Hi-tech Township Limited
Citation: Comp. App (AT) (INS) No. 248 / 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi, comprising Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has rejected an application filed by homebuyers under Section 7 of IBC seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Ansal Hi-Tech Township.
The Homebuyers had purchased flats in the Sushant Metropolis Township project being developed by Ansal Hi-Tech Township in NOIDA.
NCLAT held that homebuyers are from numerous different projects, and they have not established their case as creditors of a class concerning any particular project registered with RERA to fulfil the requirement of 10% or 100 homebuyers, as stipulated under Section 7(1) of IBC.
Case Title: Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mamta Binani (RP of Rolta India Ltd.) and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 464 of 2024
Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that new Resolution Applicants are not entitled to submit applications to the Adjudicating Authority to participate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') and submit a Resolution Plan, when a fresh Form G hasn't been issued under Regulation 36A (1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations 2016”).
Case Title: Mr. Umesh Kumar vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, IRP of Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 100 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held the Resolution Professional can always ask for additional information from creditors to substantiate the claim and exercise due diligence.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2643, 3702 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the interveners in a case do not have the right to seek relief for themselves before the Adjudicating Authority.
The NCLAT observed that interveners are expected to either support the challenged order or the appellant. The individuals who submit their claims to the Insolvency Resolution Professional and whose claims are documented have the complete right to approach the Successful Resolution Applicant or the Monitoring and Implementation Committee. They are entitled to pursue their entitlements according to the provisions outlined in the Resolution Plan.
NCLAT Delhi: Examining The Validity Of Any Contractual Agreement Is Beyond The Scope Of Powers Of RP
Case Title: Mr. Umesh Kumar vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, IRP of Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 100 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held the examining the validity/sustainability of any contractual agreement including its formatting, etc lies outside the purview of the charter of duties and responsibilities of the Resolution Professional ('RP').
Case title: Gupta Textiles v Darshan Patel & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 408 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that amount payable under resolution plan to Operational Creditors in terms of Section 30(2)(b) of IBC, can only be by way of cash and not partly paid Redeemable Preference Shares or equity.
Case title: Sanjay Saihgal v Krone Finstock Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.123/2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member), Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), has stayed the insolvency proceedings initiated against Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd. by the NCLT, till the next date of hearing i.e. 26.04.2024.
Deccan Charters is a Bengaluru based company which operates chartered helicopters and fixed wing aircrafts and also provides services such as aircraft maintenance, aircraft management and aviation training.
Case title: Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini v Vardhansmart Private Limited
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.23/2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member), Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shri Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), has held that the 'free of cost' certified copy of final order sent by NCLT registry in compliance of NCLT Rules is not a 'certified copy' of the order for the purpose of filing appeal before NCLAT.
Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 provides that every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. It was observed that the Appellant's obligation to apply for a certified copy of the order to be challenged by paying requisite fees cannot be dispensed with.
Case title: Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. v Mr. Supriyo Kumar Chaudhuri
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1070 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 an Auction Purchaser cannot claim interest on sale consideration from the Liquidator for delayed issuance of Sale Certificate, if the delay has occurred due to a restraint order passed by NCLT.
Case title: Shri Rahul Gyanchandani & Ors. v Parsvnath Landmark Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 309 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the status of an 'allottee' would not convert into a 'decree holder' for the purpose of IBC, merely because RERA Authority has passed an order in its favour directing the Builder/Corporate Debtor to refund the entire amount.
The second proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC states that, “Provided further that for financial creditors who are allottees under a real estate project, an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor shall be filed jointly by not less than one hundred of such allottees under the same real estate project or not less than ten per cent. of the total number of such allottees under the same real estate project, whichever is less..”
The Allottee, even after procuring a favourable order from RERA, is obligated to meet the threshold given under second proviso to Section 7(1) for filing a petition under Section 7 of IBC.
“The Appellant cannot be said to go out of the definition of 'allottees' merely because they have an order in their favour by RERA and the Appellants' submission that they should be treated in a different category, i.e., category of 'Decree Holder' and are not required to comply with Section 7, sub-section (1), 2nd Proviso cannot be accepted. The Appellants even after order of the RERA, directing for refund by the Corporate Debtor, continued to be allottees and they have filed Section 7 Application as Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor. They are mandatorily required to comply with Section 7, sub-section (1), 2nd Proviso.”
Case Title: R.B. Singh and Anr. vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1187 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that if no Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) refund/ Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) claim has been included in the Demand Notice under Section 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) or in Form 5 by the Operational Creditor, the same cannot become a ground of default on which Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under IBC can be initiated.
Case Title: Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.576 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Members), in Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India & Ors. has held that the decision taken by New Resolution Professional cannot be objected by the Erstwhile Resolution Professional after replacement who is now proceeding with the CIRP.
Case Title: Ashok Dattatray Atre and Ors. vs. State Bank of India and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 221 and 222 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the Adjudicating Authority can extend payment timelines under the Resolution Plan without the express concurrence of the Committee of Creditors ('CoC').
When Claims And Counter Claims Are Involved, Liquidator Cannot Decide The Same: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. FLSmidth Private Limited vs Lanco Infratech Ltd
Case No.: TA (AT) No.207/2021 (CA (AT) (Ins) No.1353/2019)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Chennai Bench, comprising Shri Justice Venugopal M. (Judicial Member) and Shri Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) in M/s. FLSmidth Private Limited vs Lanco Infratech Ltd. has held that when claim and counter-claims are involved Liquidator cannot decide the same.
Case Title: Sanam Fashion & Design Exchange Ltd. vs. Ktex Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1234 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) held that the dispute between the parties regarding contractual conditions relating to place of delivery and obligation of parties for transport of goods is a “pre-existing dispute” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
NCLAT Delhi: Extension Of Time In Payment Is Not Modification Of Resolution Plan
Case Title: Ashok Dattatray Atre and Ors. vs. State Bank of India and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 221 and 222 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that an extension of time in payment is not a modification of the Resolution Plan.
Case Title: Ashok Tiwari vs. DBS Bank India (Ltd.) and Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 195 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that Rule 49 of NCLT Rules, 2016 gives ample jurisdiction to the Adjudicating Authority to proceed for ex parte as the corporate debtor does not appear. “Appearance” as contemplated under Rule 49(1) is an appearance by the corporate debtor or by an authorized representative.
File No. 10/36/2018-NCLAT
The Registrar of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has issued a notice dated 27.05.2024, intimating that NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the Registry shall function during the period of Annual Summer Vacation from 03.06.2024 to 30.06.2024.
Case Title: Mr. Devarajan Raman Liquidator of Kotak Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 977 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the set-off/adjustment of demand with refund by Income Tax Department during the intervening period when the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') timeline period has expired but before passing of Liquidation Order under Section 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') amounts to violation of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.
Case Title: Mr. Sanjay Kumar vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd and Anr
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1210 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Ajai Das Mehrotra held that the adjudicating authority cannot venture into the appreciation of the merit of pre-existing dispute and embark upon the adjudication of rival contentions of parties.
NCLAT: Assignment Agreement By Corporate Debtor, Malafide Exercise To Prolong CIRP
Case Title: Peanence Commercial Private Limited and Anr vs Mamta Binani
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 905 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technicial Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has upheld a decision of NCLT, Mumbai and held Assignment Agreement initiated by the Corporate Debtor was a deliberate strategy intended to introduce obstacles and prolong the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
NCLAT Dismisses Appeal Raised By Byju's Investors Against Alleged Violation Of NCLT Directives
Case Title: MIH Edtech Investments and Ors. vs Think and Learn Pvt Ltd
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.24/2024 (IA No.420/2024) (IA No.422/2024) (IA No.421/2024)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Chennai bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) dismissed the appeals brought by four investors since the Adjudicating Authority has not made any final decision on any significant rights against the investors and instead has merely requested them to file an affidavit to support their claims regarding the alleged violation of its directives.
Case Title: Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd vs OCCL Ltd
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No. 144 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) held that if the Company Court finds no violation of any law and the proposed scheme is not objectionable or against public policy, then the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to question the commercial judgment of those who approved it.
Case Title: Commissioner of State Tax Department vs Ramchandra Dallaram Chaudhary (Liquidator)
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 34 of 2024 & I.A. No. 105, 106, 990 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) held that the claims of Tax Assessment Orders passed during the moratorium under Sections 14 & 33(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be considered as Unsecured Operational Debt.
Case Title: Royal India Corporation Ltd. vs Mr. Nandkishor Vishnupant Deshpande, RP of Royal Refinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 137 of 2021
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Delhi comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) held that proceedings under Section 66 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) for fraudulent or wrongful trading can be initiated against third parties.
Case Title: Chintan Jhunjhunwala vs Avani Towers Private Limited & Ors
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 769 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising Shri Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Shri Barun Mitra and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Members) held that Refundable Security Deposit carrying interest in development agreement constitutes under Section 5(8) of IBC since the development agreement has the effect of a commercial transaction.
No Provision In IBC Mandates Treatment Of Unrelated Party At Par With Related Party: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs Bijay Murmuria & Ors.
Case No. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1272 of 2019
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Shri Naresh Salecha and Shri Indevar Pandey (Technical Members), held that there is no provision of IBC, which mandates that the related party should be paid in parity with unrelated party. It was held that the Committee of Creditors and Adjudicating Authority were well within their rights not to treat a related party unsecured creditor on par with secured financial creditors.
Case Title: Grand Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nitin Batra & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3250 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the pendency of a scheme involving the corporate debtor under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be a ground to deny the admission of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') against such corporate debtor.
Case Title: Shrenik Ashokbhai Morakhia vs. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 719 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi bench, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that Section 95(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Code, 2016 ('IBC') allows creditors to initiate insolvency process against a Personal Guarantor through a Resolution Professional ('RP'). It held that such an application cannot be questioned to be defective on the ground that the application was signed by the Resolution Professional rather than an authorized officer.
Case Title: Avil Menezes Liquidator of Sunil Hitech and Engineers Ltd. vs. Abdul Qudduskhan and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 263 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) laid down the criteria to determine whether a cost incurred by a Resolution Professional ('RP') during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') qualifies as CIRP cost under Section 5(13)(c) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') read with IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ('CIRP Regulations') Regulation 31.
Case title: Vijay Saini v Shri Devender Singh & Ors
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1194 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 for computing voting with regard to proposal under Section 12A of IBC, the voting has to be computed as per proviso to Section 25A(3A) read with Section 25A(3) of IBC. It has been further clarified that a proposal under Section 12A which statutorily requires 90% votes for approval, would not stand approved if majority (more than 50%) homebuyers/financial creditors vote in favour of it. The threshold of 90% votes must be met for approval of proposal.
Section 25A(3) of IBC provides that when the Authorised Representative represents several financial creditors, then he shall cast his vote for each financial creditor according to the instructions received from each financial creditor, to the extent of his voting share.
The Proviso to Section 25A(3A) of IBC states that when voting takes place in respect of proposal under Section 12A, then the Authorised Representative of Financial Creditor shall cast his vote in accordance with Section 25A(3).
“When the statute i.e. Section 12A provides 90% voting for approval of Section 12A proposal, 90% of the voting share of the creditor in class have to be taken into consideration. Since voting by each homebuyers who represented creditor in class has to be computed as per his voting share and adding all vote shares of the creditor in class with any other Financial Creditor if it is at least up to 90% only then 12A proposal is held to be passed”, the Bench held.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that treatment of the Income Tax Department's dues in the Resolution Plan as 'Operational Creditor' is not violative of Section 30(2) of IBC.
Case title: One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v Pratham Expofab Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.287 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the NCLT cannot direct the CoC to consider settlement proposal of Suspended Management of Corporate Debtor, without granting an opportunity to be heard to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
During the pendency of plan approval application before NCLT, the Suspended Management filed an application seeking consideration of their settlement proposal by Committee of Creditors (“CoC”). The NCLT did not accord any opportunity to SRA to file its response to the application and directed the CoC to consider the settlement proposal vis-à-vis the resolution plan. The NCLAT has set aside the NCLT order.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that non-grant of any reliefs and concessions by NCLT does not have any adverse effect on the validity of the Resolution Plan and is not a violation of the law. The Bench emphasized that the Successful Resolution Applicant is obligated to implement the Resolution Plan, irrespective of whether specific reliefs and concessions are granted or not. It rejected the argument that the non-approval of certain reliefs and concessions within the Resolution Plan, the Resolution Plan cannot be approved and should be sent back to the CoC.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2643, 3702 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the personal guarantors and corporate guarantors have no right of subrogation after the approval of the Resolution Plan under IBC.
Case Title: Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. vs. Mr. Umesh Garg RP of Athena Demwe Power Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 783 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that Section 29A(c) of IBC disqualifies not only those in management and control of the Corporate Debtor when its account was declared Non-Performing Asset ('NPA') but also those in management and control of the Corporate Debtor in close proximity of time before the Resolution Plan was submitted, who failed to clear the debts of the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi: Resolution Professional Is An Aggrieved Person If NCLT Overturns His Decision
Case Title: Devendra Singh Vs. Homebuyers of Sidhartha Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 791 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Resolution Professional is an aggrieved party when the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) directly overturns his decision.
Case Title: Vijay Saini vs Devender Singh & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1194, 791 & 982 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that for voting on Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) withdrawals under Section 12A of IBC, the vote of each homebuyer must be counted individually, rather than as a collective class of financial creditors.
Section 12A stipulates statutory provisions governing “withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10”. It states, “The Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under section 7 or section 9 or section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety per cent. voting share of the committee of creditors, in such manner as may be specified.”
Case Title: Gloster Cables Ltd. vs. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 1343 of 2019
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the mere fact that the trademark was hypothecated for a higher amount and subsequently assigned for a lower amount would not be the sole criteria for deeming it an undervalued transaction.
MoU And Ledger Extract Are Insufficient Proof For Admitting Of Financial Debt Claim: NCLAT Delhi
Case title: D S Kulkarni & Associates v Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.923 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) and extract of Ledger of the Corporate Debtor are insufficient proof for acceptance of a claim as financial debt.
One of the creditors of the Corporate Debtor submitted its claim before the Resolution Professional claiming itself to be a Financial Creditor at par with Homebuyers. To substantiate the claim, the creditor submitted an MoU and Ledger extract of the Corporate Debtor as proof. The Resolution Professional rejected the claim citing that financial debt claim cannot be admitted merely upon MoU and Ledger extract and the decision was upheld by the NCLT and NCLAT.
RP Best Person To Decide What Part Of Corporate Debtor's Business Is To Be Carried Out: NCLAT Delhi
Case title: Amit Tyagi v Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.272 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the Resolution Professional who is running the Corporate Debtor's business, is the best person to decide as to what part of the business can be carried out. Further, the allottees of a real estate project developed by the Corporate Debtor cannot demand execution of conveyance deed as a matter of right.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Others
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), upheld a Resolution Plan which outlined provisions for the completion of approximately 96 residential towers that had remained under construction since 2011 by Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL). The homebuyers' plea revolved around the delay in the implementation of the Resolution Plan and their earnest desire to acquire possession of their units.
Suraksha Realty Limited submitted its Resolution Plan, which was subsequently approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). However, objections were filed by Jaiprakash Associates Limited (“JAL”), the holding company of JIL and Manoj Gaur, the erstwhile Managing Director of JIL, against Suraksha Realty's Resolution Plan, in NCLT. The NCLT had approved Suraksha Realty's Resolution Plan, leading to the filing of appeals by JAL and Manoj Gaur in NCLAT. Now NCLAT has upheld the plan submitted by Suraksha Realty Limited.
Case Title: Naman Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Metcalfe Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No.74 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member), and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the advance paid by a speculative buyer in Real Estate does not fall within the purview of Section 5(8) of IBC.
The Bench concluded that the Appellant cannot be given the status of 'Financial Creditor' as he is a speculative investor who has filed the CIRP application only for recovery of its money with profit and interest and not for the financial well-being of the Corporate Debtor.
Question Of Value Can't Be Raised Post Approval Of Resolution Plan By CoC: NCLAT Delhi
Case title: Committee of Creditors v Anil Tayal
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1633 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 an order passed by NCLT herein it was held that the question of valuation of assets cannot be raised after the resolution plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”).
Case title: Zaara Enterprises Venture Pvt. Ltd. v Dhanraaj Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 356 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the issue whether the Corporate Debtor has claimed input tax in excess on a GST invoice raised by the Operational Creditor cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
Once Resolution Plan Is Approved By CoC And NCLT, SRA Can't Seek Its Substitution With Another Resolution Applicant: NCLAT Delhi
Case title: UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr. v Aircel Ltd. Through Its Monitoring Committee
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 333 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that after approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) and NCLT, the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”) cannot be substituted with another entity/resolution applicant.
The SRA is an Asset Reconstruction Company and the plan submitted by it was approved by the CoC and NCLT. Thereafter, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) issued a circular intimating that Asset Reconstruction Companies cannot be Resolution Applicant unless they have achieved certain net worth. Since the SRA had not achieved the net worth as required by RBI, the SRA filed an application before NCLT seeking its substitution with another resolution applicant, owing to its subsequent ineligibility to be a resolution applicant as per RBI norms. The NCLT rejected the application and NCLAT has upheld the rejection.
NCLAT Delhi: CIRP U/s 7 Of IBC Can Be Initiated Against An Auction Purchaser In Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act, 2002
Case Title: Anjani Kumar Prashar (Suspended Director of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Limited) vs. Manab Datta & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1366 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') can be initiated under Section 7 of IBC against an Auction Purchaser in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act').
The NCLAT highlighted that financial debt can be incurred through various means, including assignment or transfers, as explicitly defined. In instances where amalgamation or demerger occurs under the Companies Act, 2013, resulting in the transfer or vesting of assets and liabilities to the amalgamated or transferee company, the transferee company cannot evade the obligations set forth in the insolvency code by claiming that disbursements were not directly made to it. Since the Corporate Debtor acquired the project under the SARFAESI Act, it cannot circumvent the provisions of the IBC and deprive the homebuyers of their rights. Given the existence of a financial debt, the filing of the application by the allottees under Section 7 cannot be faulted on this basis.
Once Resolution Plan Is Approved By CoC And NCLT, SRA Can't Seek Its Substitution With Another Resolution Applicant: NCLAT Delhi
Case title: UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr. v Aircel Ltd. Through Its Monitoring Committee
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 333 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that after approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) and NCLT, the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”) cannot be substituted with another entity/resolution applicant.
The SRA is an Asset Reconstruction Company and the plan submitted by it was approved by the CoC and NCLT. Thereafter, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) issued a circular intimating that Asset Reconstruction Companies cannot be Resolution Applicant unless they have achieved certain net worth. Since the SRA had not achieved the net worth as required by RBI, the SRA filed an application before NCLT seeking its substitution with another resolution applicant, owing to its subsequent ineligibility to be a resolution applicant as per RBI norms. The NCLT rejected the application and NCLAT has upheld the rejection.
Case title: Supreme Construction Developers Pvt. Ltd. v Puranik Builders Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 215 of 2024.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that when an order is passed in presence of counsels of both the parties, then the parties cannot claim that they were unaware of the order. Accordingly, the limitation to file appeal before NCLAT would commence from the date of order, and not the date of upload of order on NCLT website.
Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that while computing limitation for filing an appeal, review or revision, the date on which the judgment was pronounced and the time taken to obtain copy of the judgment shall be excluded.
The Bench opined that when NCLT passes an order, the party is obligated to apply for certified copy to seek benefit of Section 12 of Limitation Act. Since the Appellant applied for certified copy after 30 days of passing of order, the Bench declined to exclude the period from computation of limitation.
Tribunal Not Empowered To Hear Case Afresh Under Recall Jurisdiction: NCLAT Chennai
Case title: Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar v Hari S. Hari Karthik & Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 8 / 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shri Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), has held that the Tribunal cannot hear a case de-novo while adjudicating an application filed for recall of an order. The Bench has dismissed a review application filed by an Applicant seeking recall of an NCLAT order. The Bench has held that the meaning of 'recall' cannot be expanded to be read as a synonym for 'review'.
“At this juncture, this Tribunal, aptly points out that the Power to Recall of an Order or Judgment of a Tribunal, can be exercised by it only, if any procedural error, committed, in pronouncing the earlier Order or Judgment. In addition, the Power to Recall an Order / Judgment, earlier passed by this Tribunal, is not the power to Re-hear the case De-novo, to find out any Apparent error, in the Order / Judgment, which is in the ambit of a Review of a Judgment, to examine the Judicial Propriety or any Apparent Error, committed, by the Court / Tribunal, which is not the case made out in the instant Review Application, which is sought to be read as Recall, by the Petitioner/Erstwhile Liquidator.”
Erstwhile Liquidator Can't Seek Recall Of An Order In His Personal Capacity After Being Replaced By Another Liquidator: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title: Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar v Hari S. Hari Karthik & Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 8 / 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shri Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), has held that a Liquidator, after being replaced with another liquidator, cannot seek recall of an order in his personal capacity. If the erstwhile liquidator is aggrieved by an order passed by NCLAT then the remedy would lie in appeal under Section 62 of IBC.
The erstwhile Liquidator had filed an appeal before the NCLAT. In the meanwhile, the erstwhile Liquidator was replaced with new Liquidator, who withdrew the appeal before the NCLAT. The Erstwhile Liquidator filed a review application before NCLAT seeking recall of the order whereby appeal was withdrawn. The NCLAT dismissed the review application citing that the erstwhile Liquidator has no locus standi to file such application or question the decision taken by New Liquidator in his official capacity.
NCLAT Delhi; IBC Does Not Provide Any Scope For Dissatisfied Homebuyers In Minority To Override Majority Decision Of COC
Case - Mr. Girish Nalavade Vs. Bhrugesh Amin and Ors.
Citation - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1542 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the IBC does not provide any scope for dissatisfied homebuyers in the minority to override the majority decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (COC).
NCLT
NCLT Mumbai: Financial Creditor Can't Initiate CIRP Against Successful Resolution Applicant On Default Of Payment As Per Resolution Plan
Case Title: ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Ltd. vs. Nandi Vardhan Infrastructure Ltd.
Case No.: CP(IB) 276 MB 2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT'), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that the Financial Creditor cannot initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') application against the Successful Resolution Applicant ('SRA') on default in payment to Stakeholders/Creditors as per terms of the approved Resolution Plan under IBC.
NCLT Delhi Approves Resolution Plan of Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd For ACIL Ltd.
Case Title: IDBI Bank Limited v M/s ACIL Limited
Case No.: CP IB-170/PB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Ramkrishna Forgings Limited for ACIL Ltd.
The Resolution Plan is valued at Rs. 129.5 Crores, while the total admitted claims of the Corporate Debtor amounts to Rs. 1,782 Crores.
Claim Arising Out Of Arbitral Award Against Which Section 34 Proceedings Are Pending, NCLT Kolkata Upholds RP's Decision To Admit Claim Contingently
Case Title: Bank of India v McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 891/KB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kolkata Bench, comprising of Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has upheld the Resolution Professional's decision to admit claim arising out of an arbitral Award as contingent claim, since proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are pending before the High Court against the Award.
Case Title: Vasathi Anandi Owners Welfare Association v. Vasathi Housing Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition-CP(IB) No. 50/7/HDB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT'), Hyderabad Bench, comprising Shri. Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member), has held that the amount deposited in Corpus Fund towards the maintenance of constructed apartments by Homebuyers does not qualify as 'Financial Debt' within the meaning of Section 5(8)(f) of IBC. It was observed that Corpus Fund amount is similar to a prepayment made to a service provider for maintenance and the same does not meet the criteria for classification as Financial Debt.
Suspended Directors Can't Transfer Amount From Corporate Debtor's Account During Stay On CIRP, NCLT Mumbai Directs Refund
Case Title: State Bank of India v Arshiya Northern FTWZ Limited
Case No.: C.P. No. 1245 of 2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Ms. Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member), has held that Suspended Directors of Corporate Debtor cannot transfer amounts from the Corporate Debtor's account while there is a stay on CIRP.
The NCLAT stayed the CIRP and before vacation of stay the Suspended Directors transferred certain amounts from the Corporate Debtor's account towards loan payment of Group Companies. The Bench directed the Group Companies to revert the amount in the Corporate Debtor's account.
“After the stay of the CIRP order, Resolution Professional cannot discharge any function. Stay of admission order/CIRP does not mean that the Corporate Debtor should be put back in the management of day to day affairs of the company and allowed to function as such. Interim Order staying CIRP clearly means that no further process shall be taken in CIRP and the Resolution Professional shall not take any further action. The Corporate Debtor can no longer be permitted to function as it was functioning prior to the date of admission order.”
NCLT Allahabad: Operational Debt, Out Of Non Delivery Of Goods Due To Export Ban, Not Maintainable
Case Title: Morex Corporation Ltd. v. Jindal Poly Films Ltd.
Case No.: CP (IB) No.12/ALD/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT'), Allahabad, comprising Shri. Praveen Gupta (Judicial Member) and Shri Ashish Verma (Technical Member), has held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') application under Section 9 of IBC is not maintainable for any claim arising on account of non-delivery of goods for export by the Corporate Debtor due to a ban imposed by the Government of India.
NCLT Hyderabad Approves Resolution Plan For GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd., A GVK Group Company
Case Title: Axis Bank Limited v GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd
Case No.: CP No. (IB) 43/7/HDB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited for GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited, which is a part of GVK Group promoted by Mr. Gunupati Venkata Krishna Reddy.
The Resolution Plan is valued at Rs. 1,080 Crores, while the total admitted claims of the Corporate Debtor amounts to Rs. 6,615.48 Crores.
NCLT Mumbai: Non-Acceptance Of Goods By Corporate Debtor Does Not Equate To Operational Debt U/S 5(21) Of IBC
Case Title: Adishank Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Baerlocher India Additives Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CP(IB)/736/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT'), Mumbai Bench, comprising Justice Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Mr. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that the non-acceptance of the goods by the Corporate Debtor cannot be equated with the default in respect of an Operational debt under Section 5(21) of IBC.
NCLT Hyderabad: IBC Overrides The Provisions Of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864
Case Title: K. Sivalingam RP of NCS Sugars Ltd. vs. District Collector and Ors.
Case No.: CP(IB) No.299/7/HDB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Hyderabad, comprising Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri. Charan Singh (Technical Member) held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') overrides the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.
NCLT Hyderabad: Moratorium U/s 14 Of IBC Imposes Legal 'Embargo' Not Only On Financial Creditors But On Any Other Person For Sale Of Assets In CIRP
Case Title: K. Sivalingam RP of NCS Sugars Ltd. vs. District Collector and Ors.
Case No.: CP(IB) No.299/7/HDB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Hyderabad, comprising Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri. Charan Singh (Technical Member), has held that the moratorium u/s 14 of IBC operates as a legal 'embargo' on the sale or alienation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor not only on the Financial Creditor but also on any person.
NCLT Kolkata: Revival Of Corporate Debtor Is Primary Goal Of Resolution Plan And Going Concern Sale
Case Title: Universaltech Paper LLP vs. Mr. Krishnaswami CVR, Liquidator of Kohinoor Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: I.A. (I.B.C.) 1055/KB/2023 In CP(IB) No. 511/KB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Justice Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Mr. Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has held that the primary goal of Resolution Plan as well as the sale of a Corporate Debtor as a going concern remains the same i.e revival of the Corporate Debtor's business.
IBC | Settlement In Section 7 Or Dropping Of Sec. 66 Proceedings Does Not Automatically End Proceedings Under Section 43: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Reserve Bank of India v Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited
Case No.: COMPANY PETITION (IB) NO. 4258/MB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that the proceedings under Section 43 of IBC would not automatically end against a party, if the parties enter settlement in Section 7 of IBC proceedings or proceedings under Section 66 of IBC are dropped.
“We again wish to reiterate that merely because the Applicant has settled the matter with regard to the said loan does not ipso facto absolve it of the insinuations or allegations made in the application u/s 43 of the Code. We are further of the view that it would be untimely and inopportune to exonerate the Applicant of the allegations made against it in the said application which is yet to be heard and decided on merits. Besides, settlement with the Respondent in proceedings u/s 7 of the Code does not or cannot have the effect of drawing curtains over the proceedings u/s 43 of the Code which are altogether different and distinct.”
NCLT Indore: Insolvency Resolution Professional Can Continue To Function Till Appointment Of RP U/S 16(5) Of IBC
Case Title: Indian Bank vs. Indison Agro Foods Ltd.
Case No.: IA/166(MP)2023 & IA/253(MP)2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Indore, comprising Shri P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member), held that the Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') can continue to function till the date of appointment of the Resolution Professional ('RP') as per the amended provisions of Section 16(5) of IBC.
NCLT Delhi: Debt Assignment Deed Cannot Be Challenged In CIRP U/s 7 Of IBC
Case Title: CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition IB (IBC) NO. 115/PB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member), held that the Debt Assignment Deed cannot be challenged in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Section 7 of IBC.
Case Title: Hpcl-Mittal Pipelines Limited v Coastal Marine Construction And Engineering Limited
Case No.: C.P. (IB) 323/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Mr. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Mr. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that the nature of an operational debt would not change to financial debt with the passing of a decree or arbitral award in respect of the same.
“Undisputedly, the claim on the basis of which arbitral proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner emanated from a work contract which originally was at best an operational debt and as per the law laid down in the afore cited cases, the nature of debt would not change with the passing of a decree or an award and, therefore, simply because an award was passed in respect of an operational claim, it will not by itself metamorphose into a financial debt.”
NCLT Mumbai Approves Demerger Scheme For Raymond And Raymond Lifestyle
Case Title: In the Matter of Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016; AND In the matter of Arrangement Between Raymond Limited (“Demerged Company”) And Raymond Lifestyle Limited (“Resulting Company or Transferee Company”) And Ray Global Consumer Trading Limited (“Transferor Company”) And their respective Shareholders
Case Number: CP (CAA)/38/MB-IV/2024 IN CA (CAA)/281/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench of Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member) has granted approval on for a composite scheme of arrangement involving Raymond Limited (RL), Raymond Lifestyle (RLL), and Ray Global Consumer Trading (RG).
Speculative Investor Is Not A Financial Creditor: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title: Nikhil Khanna & Ors vs. Spaze Towers Pvt Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 70/Chd/Hry/2022 & IA No. 81/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, comprising Shri Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N Gupta (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) has held that speculative investor cannot claim the status and benefits as a Financial Creditor by virtue of being an allottee under Section 5(8)(f) of the Code.
NCLT Delhi: 'Homebuyers' Seeking Redressal Through 'RERA' Or 'NCDRC' Prior To Approaching 'NCLT' Retain Their Status As Financial Creditors
Case Title: Tarun Ahuja & Ors. Vs Puri Construction Private Limited
Case No: CP IB NO. 755/PB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi, comprising Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member), has held that regardless of whether homebuyer-allottees have sought recourse through RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) or NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) prior to approaching Tribunal, their status as 'financial creditors' under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC will remain unchanged.
NCLT New Delhi: NCLT Rejects Insolvency Petition Filed By Wilmington Trust Against Spicejet Ltd.
Case Title: Wilmington Trust SP Services (Dublin) Ltd. vs. SpiceJet Ltd.
Case No.: CP IB NO. 349/(ND)/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') New Delhi, comprising Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has declined Wilmington Trust's application to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') against SpiceJet Limited. The CIRP application has been rejected on the premise that for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'), a clear distinction is required between the Owner, Lessor, Assignee, Trustee, to being recognized as Operational Creditor in terms of provision of IBC.
NCLT Kolkata: Simultaneous CIRP Can Be Initiated Against Principal Borrower And Corporate Guarantor
Case Title: State Bank of India vs. Anupriya Management Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 18/KB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that a simultaneous Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') can be initiated against Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC').
NCLT Kolkata: Filing Of Default Information With Information Utility Under Rule 20(1A) Of IBBI (UI) Regulations 2017 Is Not Mandatory
Case Title: State Bank of India vs. Anupriya Management Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 18/KB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that the filing of default information with Information Utility in compliance with Rule 20(1A) of IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations 2017 ('IBBI Regulations 2017') is not mandatory compliance.
NCLT Hyderabad: 'Provisional Order Of Attachment' Made Under PMLA Would Not Nullify The Protection Granted Under Section 32A IBC
Case Title: Canara Bank vs Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited
Case No.: CP(IB)No.41/7/HDB/2017
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Hyderabad, comprising Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has held that the provisional order of attachment (POA) under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in respect of the properties of the corporate debtor covered under the approved resolution plan, would not end the protection available to such properties under section 32A IBC.
Section 32A stipulates that once Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority after completion of CIRP, there cannot be attachment or confiscation of assets of Corporate Debtor, as otherwise same will defeat objects of the insolvency Regime.
Private Sale Conducted In Non-Transparent Manner & In Absence of Several SCC Members, NCLT Indore Directs Liquidator To Re-Conduct Bidding
Case Title: Hira International Limited v M/s Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Industries Limited
Case No.: CP(IB) 591 of 2019
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Indore Bench, comprising of Shri P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member), has directed the Liquidator to re-conduct private sale bidding of the Corporate Debtor since the earlier bidding was not conducted in transparent manner. The Bench observed that the Liquidator failed to make genuine efforts to sale the Corporate Debtor under Liquidation through Public Auction. Thereafter, the Liquidator conducted Private Sale hastily and without giving proper prior notice to Stakeholders Consultation Committee (“SCC”) to attend the bidding. Consequently, only one SCC member could attend the bidding.
On an application filed by unsuccessful bidder, the Bench has directed the Liquidator to re-conduct the Private Sale bidding in presence and consultation of SCC members, including the Commercial Tax Department.
NCLT Mumbai: Corporate Guarantor's Date Of Default Is Independent Of Principal Borrower's Date Of Default
Case Title: Central Bank of India vs Superfine Profile and Extrusions Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CP (IB) 692/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Mr. Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Ms. Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member), has held that the date of default by the Principal Borrower is not relevant to determine the date of default by the Corporate Guarantor.
NCLT Ahmedabad: Amount Invested In A Joint Venture Project Of A Promoter And Investor Does Not Constitute Financial Debt Under IBC
Case Title: Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd. vs. GSEC Monarch and Deccan Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CP(IB)/100(AHM)2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Ahmedabad, comprising Justice Mrs. Chitra Hankare (Judicial Member) and Mr. Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy (Technical Member), has held that the amount invested in a Joint Venture Project of a promoter and investor is not a Financial Debt under IBC.
NCLT Chennai: Liquidation Is A Time-Bound Process And Liquidator Is Accountable To Explain Delay In Liquidation Process
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu vs. S. Rajendran, Liquidator of Daehsan Trading India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: IA/1318/IB/2020 in TCP/111/IB/2017
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Chennai, comprising Justice Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Venkataraman Subramanian (Technical Member) held that Liquidation is a time-bound process and the Liquidator being made accountable is required to explain if there is any delay caused in the liquidation process.
Appeal Under Section 42 Of IBC Would Only Lie Against An 'Adjudicating' Order Of The Liquidator: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Sai Projects & Engineers Private Limited v Kalpyog Chemicals Private Limited
Case No.: C.P.(IB)/1619(MB)/C-III/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Smt. Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Shri Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member), has held that an appeal under Section 42 of IBC would only lie against an 'adjudicating' order passed by the Liquidator. The Bench has rejected an appeal filed under Section 42 of IBC, whereby Employees Provident Fund Organization challenged a letter sent by the Liquidator at a time when he stood discharged from his duties due to dissolution of the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT Mumbai: Society Not Entitled To Recover Past Arrears Of Applicant's Purchase In The Auction From Liquidator Of Corporate Debtor
Case Title: Mr. Hitendra Vishanji Nagda and Ors. vs. Prime Plaza Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 4302/MB/C-II/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Justice Shri. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) held that the Society is not entitled to recover the past arrears in respect of the unit purchased by the Applicant in the auction from the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT Mumbai Allows Withdrawal Of Liquidation Application On Receipt Of Resolution Plan
Case Title: Salil Shashank Kulkarni v Rubique Technologies India Private Limited
Case No.: I.A. No. 4372 of 2023 in CP (IB) No. 4304 (MB) of 2019
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Justice Shri. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) allowed the withdrawal of the liquidation application since one resolution plan was received by the Committee of Creditors ('CoC') during the pendency of the liquidation application upholding the aim of IBC.
NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Can't Be Initiated U/S 7 Of IBC Based On Transfer Agreement For Purchase Of Debentures From Financial Creditors
Case Title: Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs. Ajmera Realty and Infra India Ltd.
Case No.: CP (IB) No.877/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Justice V.G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) held that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Section 7 of IBC cannot be initiated based on Transfer Agreement/promise for purchase of Debentures from Financial Creditors.
NCLT Imposes Rs. 2.5 Lakh Cost On Personal Guarantor For Delayed Filing Of Reply, NCLAT Delhi Reduces Cost To Rs. 25,000
Case title: Rakesh Nayar v State Bank of India
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 270 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has reduced the cost imposed by NCLT on Personal Guarantor for 6 days delay in filing of Reply from Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to Rs. 25,000. The Bench opined that the imposition of Rs. 2.5 Lakh cost is excessive as delay in filing of Reply to application under Section 95 of IBC was of mere 6 days.
NCLT Mumbai Orders Dream 11's Sports Platform Owner Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Into CIRP Under IBC
Case Title: Piyush Jani, RP for Reward Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CP No. 775/(IB)-MB-V/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Justice Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Shri. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) allowed the petition and ordered Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'). The Corporate Debtor is Dream 11's sports platform owner.
NCLT Orders Liquidation Of Mehul Choksi-Promoted Gitanjali Gems
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has ruled for the liquidation of Gitanjali Gems, a jewelry retailing company headed by fugitive Mehul Choksi, under Section 33 of IBC.
“On perusal of records, it is evident that the assets of the Corporate Debtor were under attachment by the Directorate of Enforcement under the enforcement under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 and considering the bleak chances of insolvency resolution amid the ongoing investigations and attachment of assets, the CoC had resolved in its 06th Meeting held on 05th April, 2019 to liquidate the Corporate Debtor by a majority of 90.16% voting in favour.”
The tribunal further added that, “The CoC with requisite voting as given under Section 33(2) has approved the liquidation of Corporate Debtor in view of bleak chances of receiving any resolution plan for the reasons discussed hereinbefore. This Tribunal has very limited powers of judicial review in such matters of commercial wisdom.”
Case Title: Mr. Manish Kumar, suspended director of Wearit Global Ltd. vs. Rachna Jhunjunwala, RP and Anr.
Case Number: I.A. (IB) No. 53/KB/2024 in Company Petition (IB) No. 100/KB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata bench of Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri Arvind Devanathan (Technical Member) held that MSME promoters can be relaxed from the net worth eligibility criteria to submit a Resolution Plan but not be waived off from depositing Security Deposit and EMD.
Case Title: Intec Capital Limited vs. Mr. Parul Upadhyay
Case Number: CP(IB) 315(ND)/2022 & IA No. 913/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Bachu Venkat Balram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 95 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) held that the applicant has approached all possible forums for remedies, constituting forum shopping. It was stated that this conduct indicates the applicant did not approach the Adjudicating Authority with clean hands.
NCLT Mumbai Admits Personal Insolvency Application Against Videocon's Promoter Rajkumar Dhoot
Case Title: State Bank of India through Asish Narayan vs Mr. Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot
Case No.: C.P. (IB) NO. 1195/MB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai bench, comprising Justice V.G. Bisht (Judicial Member) and Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has admitted personal insolvency application against Mr. Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot, Promoter and Co-owner, of Videocon Industries Limited.
Case Title: ICICI Bank Limited vs Jaiprakash Associates Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 330/ALD/2018 with IA No.263 of 2024 and IA No. 406 of 2023
The Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has directed the initiation of insolvency proceedings against Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), a prominent firm within the Jaypee Group. This decision follows insolvency petitions filed by ICICI Bank in 2018 and State Bank of India (SBI) in 2022, aiming to recover debts amounting to several thousand crores.
Case Title: In the matter of Mr. Siri Kishan Aggarwal
Case No.: CP IB NO. 403/ND/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal Court-V, New Delhi bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has appointed a Resolution Professional in an application filed under Section 94(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Personal Guarantor approached the bench for insolvency proceedings to be initiated against himself.
Case Title: Mr. Ankur Kumar vs Mr Jitendra Kikavat & others and connected matters
Case No.: I.A. 2020 OF 2020 and connected matters
The National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench-I of Justice Shri V.G. Bisht (Judicial Member) and Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) held that there is no need for any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited vs Gigeo Construction Company Private Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No.1180/MB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-VI bench of K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that the principal debtor and the surety are jointly and severally liable to the creditor which has the right to recover its dues from either or both of them simultaneously.
Allotment Of Shares At Lesser Price, An Oppressive Act Against Existing Members : NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Mr. Ajay Tajpuriya & Anr. vs Goel Ganga Infrastructure & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: T.C.P. No. 08 of 2014
The National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench-I of Justice V.G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) held that allotment of the shares at a concessional price is an oppressive act qua existing members to whom no such allotment has been made. It held that the allotment of the share value at a face value, which is less than its book value is not in accordance with the provision of Section 42 of the Companies Act.
Case Title: M/s Tri-Wall Pak Private Limited vs M/S 5 Core Acoustics Private Limited
Case No.: I.A. 2892/2023 In Company Petition No. (IB) – 468/ND/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal Court V, New Delhi bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has held that CoC in the legislative scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is empowered to take the decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor, any time after its constitution and before confirmation of the resolution plan.
NCLT Orders Byju's To Halt Second Rights Issue Amid Allegations Of Mismanagement
Case Title: M/s. MIH Edtech Investments B.V. & Ors. vs M/s. Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: C.A. Nos.71, 72 & 76/2024 in C.P. No.18/BB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has directed Byju's to maintain the status quo regarding its shareholding structure. This directive effectively halts the company's controversial second rights issue. The interim order was issued by a special bench consisting of M.S.S. Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member) in response to a petition filed by a group of investors alleging oppression and mismanagement.
NCLT Chandigarh: Indemnity Obligation Can't Be Treated As Operational Debt For Lack Of Privity
Case Title: M/s Agarwal Foundries Private Limited vs POSCO E&C India Private Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 109/Chd/Hry/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh bench of Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and LN Gupta (Technical Member) held that indemnity obligation pertaining to a guarantee is not applicable in cases involving operational debt.
Case Title: Manish Aneja & Ors. vs M/S Revital Reality Private Limited
Case No.: Company Petition IB (IBC) NO. 657/ND/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal Court V, New Delhi bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has initiated insolvency proceedings against Revital Reality Private Limited noting that it failed to deliver possession of the residential units within the stipulated time frame.
NCLT Orders Insolvency Proceedings Against Himalayan Mineral Waters Following Rs 50 Crore Default
Case Title: Jammu And Kashmir Bank vs Himalayan Mineral Waters Private Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) NO.37/ALD/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) recently ordered the initiation of insolvency proceedings against Himalayan Mineral Waters, following a plea by Jammu and Kashmir Bank. The decision came after Himalayan Mineral Waters, acting as the corporate guarantor for Leel Electricals, failed to repay a debt amounting to Rs 50 crore. This debt was owed to Jammu and Kashmir Bank which arose from credit facilities obtained by Leel Electricals.
NCLT Chandigarh Bench Approves Air India-Vistara Merger
Case Title: In the matter of Composite Scheme of Arrangement amongst Talace Pvt. Limited and Tata Sia Airlines Ltd. and Air India Ltd. and their respective shareholders.
Case No.: Company Petition No. (CAA)-41/CHD/HRY/2023 connected with Company Application No. CA (CAA)-28/CHD/HRY/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chandigarh bench of Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and L. N. Gupta (Technical Member) has given its approval for the merger of Air India and Vistara. The merger, which was initially announced in November 2022, has received the green light from various stakeholders and regulatory bodies.
Breach Of Settlement Agreement Not 'Operational Debt' Under Section 5(21) Of IBC: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Amrik Cranes and Infrastructure vs Simplex Infrastructures Limited
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 202 (KB) of 2022
The National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata bench of Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and D. Arvind (Technical Member) has held that the breach of settlement agreement between the operational creditor and corporate debtor does not fall within the ambit of “Operational Debt” as per Section 5 (21) of the IBC. Further, the bench held that NCLT was not the forum where parties could seek implementation of the Settlement Agreement.
Case Title: Mittal Polymers vs Suvarna Additives Private Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 95/MB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench, comprising Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) has held that Section 9 Application is not maintainable in the absence of strict proof of debt and default.
Case Title: Mr. Gireesh Sanghi vs. Sanghi Cements Limited and Anr.
Case No.: CP NO. 5/59/HDB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal Hyderabad bench comprising Justice Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member) dismissed a petition filed under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 and referred the matter to Civil Court for a detailed investigation.
Case Title: Mr. Ravindra Beleyur Resolution Professional Reliable Cashew Company Pvt Ltd
Case Number: IA(IBC)/2308(CHE)/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal Chennai Bench of Jyoti Kumar Tripathi (Judicial Member) and Ravichandran Ramasamy (Technical Member) has recalled its order. This order follows a directive from the Karnataka High Court, which ordered maintaining the status quo on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India's (IBBI) recommendations for appointment of liquidator other than Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP)/Resolution Professional (RP).
Case Title: Grant Thornton Bharat LLP vs. Resolution Capital Global Pvt Ltd
Case Number: TP (Co. Act.)-11(PB)/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Mr. Avinash K. Srivastava (Technical Member) has asked the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to amend the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) regulations.
NCLT Mumbai Holds Resolution Professional Accountable For Biased Conduct, Sets Aside Approved Resolution Plan
Case: Bank of India Vs Wadhwa Buildcon LLP
Citation: C.P. (IB) No. 2946 of 2019
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench, comprising of Justice Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Madhu Sinha (Technical Member), has held the Resolution Professional accountable for biased conduct aimed at facilitating the approval of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) Plan by the Committee of Creditors (COC). Consequently, the NCLT has set aside the Resolution Plan of the SRA, as approved by the COC, holding SRA ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC to submit the Resolution Plan.
Party Refuses To Argue Unless Proceedings Are Recorded, NCLT Ahmedabad Adjourns Party's All Cases Sine Dine Till Recording Facility Is Made Available
Case Title: Gujarat Operational Creditors Association & Another Vs Nemo in 'State Bank of India v Essar Steels Ltd.'
Case No.: IA/347(AHM)2024 in CP(IB) 40 of 2017
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Mrs. Chitra Hankare (Judicial Member) and Dr. Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy (Technical Member), has adjourned all matters sine dine belonging to Gujarat Operational Creditors Association (Applicant) till the time the project for online recording of proceedings is taken up by the administrative side of NCLT.
“Till the project for online recording of proceedings is taken up by the administrative side we will not hear any of applicant's matters and it is listed for further hearing Sine die as per his prayer.”
In a recall application filed by the Applicant, interim prayers were made for switching on the recording feature in Webex platform for audio/video recording of proceedings before NCLT. The NCLT ruled that it is not empowered under NCLT Rules or otherwise to grant such prayer.
“The main prayer sought by the Learned Counsel before this Court through this application is recording of the proceedings to be conducted when the cases filed by him are being heard in order to enable him to interpret or determine whether the orders passed are in order to satisfy the prayers filed by him. This Court has no powers under either the duties and responsibilities entrusted to this Court for conducting the proceedings, or the procedure prescribed in NCLT Rules (which were followed to hear the application) to pass any order as sought and the orders were passed strictly in terms of Rules laid down in NCLT 2016.”
NCLT Chennai - Resolution Professional Should Not Rely Solely On Corporate Debtor's Records For Verifying Claims
Case Title: K. Amutha Versus Resolution Professional of M/s. Ambojini Property Developers Private Limited
Case No.: CP/938/IB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai bench, comprising Justice Jyoti Kumar Tripathi (Judicial Member) and Shri Ravichandran Ramasamy (Technical Member), has held that The Resolution Professional (RP) should not rely solely on the Corporate Debtor's records for verifying claims as the improper maintenance of the records can unfairly burden the creditors.
General Power Of Attorney Holder Can File An Application U/S 7 Of IBC Without A Specific Board Resolution Authorization: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Punjab National Bank v. Arshiya Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 3143/MB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that a General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) holder can file an application under Section 7 of IBC without having a specific Board Resolution.
The Bench held that under Section 7(1) of IBC, an application filed by a GPA holder will be considered to have been filed by the Financial Creditor itself and not by any person on its behalf. Therefore, a GPA holder does not need to have a specific Board Resolution as per the MCA Notification.
Loan Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement, Statement Of Account, And Copy Of Notice U/S 13(2) OF SARFAESI Constitute “Such Other Record” U/S 7(3)(A) Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Primcomm Media Distribution Ventures Private Limited
Case No.: C.P.(IB)-246(MB)/C-III/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Smt. Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Shri Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member), has held that loan sanction letter, statement of account, copy of notice under section 13(2) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI”), and revised payment schedule will constitute “such other record” under section 7(3)(a) of IBC.
Case Title: Machino Transport Private Limited vs. Machino Finance Private Limited
Case No.: IA (CA) No. 213/KB/2023 and CP No. 42/KB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member) held that the limitation period for enforcing a scheme under the Companies Act, 2013 is 12 years as prescribed under the Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Case Title: Mr. Jai Kumar Rai and Mrs. Supriya Saxena v. Mr. Arun Kapoor In M/s. Capri Global Capital Ltd. v. M/s. Monarch Brookefields LLP
Case No.: IA No. 3014 of 2021 In CP (IB) 2517(MB) of 2018
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Mr. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Mr. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has held that claims cannot be admitted after the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) even if approval by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) is pending.
Amount Given As Share Application Money Does Not Qualify As A Financial Debt Under IBC: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title: Mittson Fille Enterprise vs. Sammaan Ventures Limited
Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 147/KB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kolkata Bench, comprising Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member) has held that amount given as Share Application Money does not qualify as a financial debt under section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
Case Title: Subodh Kumar Agarwal, RP of Hindustan Controls and Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Steel Authority of India
Case No.: IA(IB) No. 1820/( KB) /2023 in CP (IB) No. 1256/KB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award even when the award was issued post-initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') and during moratorium period under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC').
Case Title: Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Primcomm Media Distribution Ventures Private Limited
Case No.: C.P.(IB)-246(MB)/C-III/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Smt. Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Shri Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member) has held that loan sanction letter, statement of account, copy of notice under section 13(2) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI”), and revised payment schedule will constitute “such other record” under section 7(3)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“Code”).
Case Title: Punjab National Bank vs. Arshiya Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 3143/MB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that a General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) holder can file an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) without having a specific Board Resolution.
NCLT Notifies Holidays And Upcoming Vacation In Benches Of NCLT
File No.: 10/03/2024-NCLT
The Registrar of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has issued a circular dated 02.05.2024, intimating the holidays and upcoming vacation benches at NCLT. The Registrar has directed that during the vacation only urgent matters at NCLT Benches shall be taken up via video conferencing mode. The same is subject to the availability of the Hon'ble Member (s). Hon'ble Member(s) shall grant hearing to the urgent matters as per their convenience.
File No. 25/02/2024-NCLT
The Registrar of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has issued a circular dated 29.04.2024, intimating a free Wi-Fi facility for Advocates, litigants, and other stakeholders of NCLT Benches. The said circular has been issued in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 351/2023, titled “Sarvesh Mathur vs. The Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana”.
Case Title: Mr. Sanjay Gupta Liquidator of Lanco Babandh Power Limited vs. Mr. Tarun Kumar Panda & Ors.
Case No.: Contempt Petition No.16 of 2023 in IA No.939 of 2020 in CP (IB) No.296/7/HDB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Hyderabad, comprising Justice Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Mr. Sanjay Puri (Technical Member) held Mr. Ravi Kiran Saladi Konda, Deputy Traffic Manager, New Mangalore Port Authority and Mr. Sriman Nayan Mishra, Senior Assistant Traffic Manager, Paradip Port Authority ('Respondents') guilty of contempt for disobeying the directions of the Adjudicating Authority and sentenced them to simple imprisonment of 1 month each with a fine of Rs 1000.
NCLT Defers Hearing On Go First's Insolvency Case To July
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi division bench of Justice Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has postponed the hearing on the insolvency plea of Go First, the grounded airline, to July 11, 2024. This decision came among concerns regarding the future of the airline. The tribunal stated it needed time for further examination of the recent developments, particularly the ramifications of the Delhi High Court's order, before reaching a verdict.
NCLT Grants Approval For Viacom18 And Star India Merger Scheme
Case Title: In the matter of The Scheme of Arrangement Among Viacom18 Media Private Limited (“Transferor Company”) And Digital18 Media Limited (“Transferee Company or Demerged Company”) And Star India Private Limited (“Resulting Company”)
Case No.: CA (CAA)/64/MB-IV/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai has taken the first step towards the completion of merger deal involving Reliance Industries Ltd's Viacom18, its subsidiary Digital18, and Walt Disney's Star India. The tribunal's Mumbai bench has admitted the merger scheme.
Case Title: Mr. Narayanam Nageswara Rao vs. Mr. K. Sivalingam (RP) and Anr.
Case No.: IA. Nos. 897 & 898 of 2024 in CP (IB) No. 299/7/HDB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Hyderabad, comprising Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member) held that the term “connected person” referred to in Explanation-I read with Section 29A(j) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') relates to the Resolution Applicant and not the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT Mumbai Approves Withdrawal Of Insolvency Proceedings Against Syska LED Lights After Settlement
Case Title: Ms. Neeraj Singh Proprietor of M/S. N.J. Electronics Vs Syska Led Lights Private Limited
Case Number: IA 2297/2024 in C.P. (IB)/63(MB)2024
The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) of Justice Virendra Singh Bisht (Judicial Member) and Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has approved the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against Syska LED Lights Pvt Ltd. This decision was made after a settlement agreement was reached between Syska and its operational creditor, Neeraj Singh, proprietor of NJ Electronics.
Case Title: Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs ND S Art World Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: IA 2243/2024 (New IA) in C.P. (IB)/895(MB)2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Justice Virendra Singh Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the plea of ND Studio Resolution Professional's (“RP”) granting exclusion of 116 days from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) period acknowledging the genuine hardships due to the ongoing criminal proceedings.
NCLT Issues Three Notices To Byju's Over Unpaid Dues, Hearing Scheduled For July 3
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has issued notices to Think and Learn Pvt Ltd, the parent company of Byju's, due to claims of unpaid dues from several creditors.
Three companies, McGraw Hill, Cogent E-services, and AG Automation, have filed cases against Byju's. McGraw Hill claims that Byju's owes them Rs 1.43 crore, while Cogent E-services says they are owed Rs 6 crore. The NCLT has set hearings for these cases on July 3, giving Byju's two weeks to respond and another week for the creditors to reply.
Record Approval Of Resolution Plans Under IBC in FY2024 By NCLT
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) achieved a record number of approvals for resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in the financial year 2023-24 (FY24). According to an analysis by ICRA, the NCLT approved 269 resolution plans, a significant increase from the previous high of 189 plans in FY23. This notable rise in approvals is attributed to the surge in corporate debtors admitted under the IBC in FY23, largely influenced by the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Metamorphosis Trading LLP vs. Membrane Filters (India) Private Limited
Case No.: C.P.(IB)-880(MB)/C-III/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai Bench, comprising Ms. Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Sh. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) in the case of Metamorphosis Trading LLP vs Membrane Filters (India) Private Limited has held that the loan amount acknowledged in the books of the Corporate Debtor as “Long-term Borrowings” is a loan having commercial effect of borrowing and is therefore, covered under section 5(8) of the I&B Code as financial debt.
Case Title: SHAARC Projects Limited vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited
Case No.: C.P. (I.B) No. 1077/MB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Justice Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that an Operational Creditor cannot combine interest under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED”) to the principal amount to meet the threshold limit under section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) if it has obtained the MSME certificate post appointed date under section 16 read with section 2(b) of MSMED.
Undated Certificate Of Bankers Book Evidence Act Valid Under IBC: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title: Canara Bank vs. Laggar Industries Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) 29/CHD/PB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chandigarh Bench, comprising Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Mr. L.N. Gupta (Technical Member) has held that an undated certificate of Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891, (“Act”) constitutes a valid certificate for regulation 2A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“IBBI Regulations”).
Assignee Of A Financial Creditor Also A Financial Creditor U/S 5 (7) Of IBC: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title: Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited vs Ankit Metal & Power Limited
Case No.: C.P (IB) No.91/KB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata Bench, comprising Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) in Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited vs Ankit Metal & Power Limited has held that the assignee of a Financial Creditor is also a Financial Creditor within the scope of Section 5(7) of IBC, 2016 and is thus competent to file the case under Section 7 of IBC.
Detention Charges Come Within The Purview Of Operational Debt: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: ABC India Ltd. vs Prabhakar Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: C.P. No. 4216/MB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Ms. Reeta Kohli, (Judicial Member) and Madhu Sinha (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) in ABC India Ltd. vs Prabhakar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. has held that Detention Charges are very much a part of the Transportation Charges and hence a part of Operational Debt.
Case Title: S.A. Consultants & Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. Prime Cargo Movers & Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: C.P. (IB) 1049/MB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Mr. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Mr. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) can be initiated against a Corporate Debtor under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) even if the Corporate Debtor had been acting as an agent of an ultimate client or principal.
NCLT Mumbai: Operational Debt Under IBC Does Not Include Penalty Or Liquidated Damages
Case Title: Sucden India Private Limited vs. Matoshri Laxmi Sugar Co-generation Industries Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No.219/MB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Shri K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) held that the operational debt under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') does not include penalty or liquidated damages.
File No.: 25/02/2024-NCLT
The Registrar of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has issued an administrative order dated 08.05.2024, intimating that in NCLT Benches, advocates, litigants, interns and advocate clerks/court clerks will not be entertained for any administrative or registry work beyond 05:00 PM.
Case Title: In re: M/s.Piramal Trusteeship Services Pvt Ltd. vs. Mr. Kakkanattil Ibrahimkutty Mohammed Rafi Mather
Case Number: CP(IBC)/36/KOB/2023 & IA(IBC)/96/KOB/2024 IN CP(IBC)/36/KOB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal Kochi, comprising Justice T Krishna Valli (Judicial Member) and Mr. Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member) dismissed the application to initiate insolvency proceedings against the Personal guarantors under Section 95 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC').
ZEE-Sony Failed Merger: NCLT Grants Zee Entertainment Permission To Withdraw Merger Implementation
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs Bangla Entertainment Private Limited And Anr
Case Number: C.A. 32/MB/C-III/2024, C.A. 54/MB/C-III/2024, C.A. 55/MB/C-III/2024, C.A. 114/MB/C-III/2024 In. C.P.(CAA)/209/MB/C-III/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai bench has granted Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) permission to withdraw its application seeking the implementation of a merger arrangement with Sony Group Corp-owned Culver Max Entertainment and Bangla Entertainment. This decision follows the termination of the merger agreement by Culver Max and Bangla Entertainment on January 22, 2024 for an alleged breach of the merger cooperation agreement (MCA).
Case Title: Mr. Ashish Chhawchharia, Resolution Professional of Jet Airways (India) Limited vs. TWC Aviation Capital Limited and Ors.
Case No.: IA No. 342/MB/C-I/2021 in C.P (IB) No.2205/MB/C-I/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai bench comprising Justice V.G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) held that assets of the Corporate Debtor held by third parties must be released to the Resolution Professional ('RP') for the resolution and revival Corporate Debtor. It also ruled that charge holders may file their claims in the appropriate class if they believe to hold a charge over such assets.
Case Title: Prudent Arc Limited vs Shirpur Gold Refinery Limited
Case Number: CP (IB) No. 250/MB/2022
Subhash Chandra-promoted Essel Group's Shirpur Gold Refinery Limited (SGRL) has been admitted for corporate insolvency resolution following an application filed by Prudent ARC at the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal.
NCLT Kolkata: Corporate Debtor Can't Take Shelter U/S 186 Of Companies Act To Avoid CIRP When Loan Has Been Advanced In Breach Of Section 186(2) Of Companies Act
Case Title: EDCL Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Urban Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 106/KB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Smt. Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that the Corporate Debtor cannot take shelter under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013 to avoid Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Section 7 of IBC, wherein the Financial Creditor has advanced loan in breach of Section 186(2) to the Corporate Debtor.
The Bench observed that the said provision serves as a safeguard for the shareholders/stakeholders of the Company, presently the Financial Creditor, ensuring that those managing the company cannot and do not exceed prescribed loan limits which would be in excess of their capacity and could lead the company into significant trouble in case of default. Thus, Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013, mandates that if a company intends to provide a loan beyond the specified limits, it requires approval from shareholders through a special resolution.
In the event of a violation under Section 186(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the affected parties would include the shareholders/stakeholders of the Financial Creditor and regulatory authorities. The Corporate Debtor cannot use such violations as a defense to refuse repayment of borrowed funds.
NCLT Mumbai Approves Rs. 9,661 Crore Resolution Plan By IndusInd International Holdings For Reliance Capital
Case Title: Mr. Nageswara Rao Y, Administrator of Reliance Capital Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Reliance Capital Limited and IndusInd International Holdings Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) No. 1231 of 2021
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Justice V.G. Bisht (Judicial Member) and Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has approved the Rs. 9,661 crore resolution plan submitted by IndusInd International Holdings Ltd ('IIHL') for Reliance Capital Limited (Corporate Debtor) under Section 31 of IBC.
The Resolution Plan of IIHL is valued at Rs. 9,661 crores. Out of the total claims of Rs 38,526.42 crore, only Rs 26,086.75 crore were admitted by the NCLT with a massive haircut of 63 percent. The average fair value of the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 16,696.05 crores and the average Liquidation value is Rs. 13,158.46 crores.
Section 53 of IBC provides priority to the dues of Workmen and Employees, however, in the resolution plan they have been paid NIL against an admitted claim of Rs. 5.71 crores.
The Plan provides that the secured financial creditors who voted in favor of the Resolution Plan be paid in full to the extent of their outstanding principal amount. The unsecured financial creditors have been proposed to be paid 5% of their admitted claims.
The Plan provides that payment towards Related Party Creditors be settled for NIL.
NCLT Chennai: Adjudicating Authority Under IBC Is Not The Appropriate Forum To Decide On Revocation Of Attachment Made By ED Under PMLA During CIRP
Case Title: Mr. Palaniappan Liquidator of Nathella Sampath Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: CP/129(IB)/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Chennai, comprising Shri Justice Jyoti Kumar Tripathi (Judicial Member) and Shri Ravichandran Ramasamy (Technical Member) held that the NCLT under IBC, is not the appropriate fora to decide on revocation of attachment made by Enforcement Directorate ('ED') under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP').
NCLT observed that the 'Attachment' as a concept cannot be decided upon by the NCLT and cannot be subject to Section 60(5) of IBC.
NCLT Kolkata: IBC Prevails Over State Financial Corporation Act, 1951
Case Title: Mr. Rajesh Lahila vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 1674/KB/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Justice Ms. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri Arvind Devanathan (Technical Member), has held that IBC prevails over State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (SFC Act).
Tribunal noted the inconsistency between Section 18(f) of IBC and Section 29 of the SFC Act and observed that while Section 18(f) of IBC casts duty on the Resolution Professional to take custody of Corporate Debtor's assets as recorded in the balance sheets, the explanation of the said provision also provides that Corporate Debtor's assets not in possession shall also be taken into custody.
On the other hand, Section 29 of the SFC Act provides that on a failure to the payment as per the terms and conditions of the borrowings, the Corporation can take first charge over the Corporate Debtor's immovable properties to be retained and dispose of the said properties pledged. The NCLT resolved the said inconsistency through the application of Section 238 of IBC providing that IBC shall prevail over any other statute in the case of such inconsistency.
NCLT Mumbai: Profits During CIRP Be Allocated To Financial Creditors When RFRP And Resolution Plan Are Silent On Such Allocation
Case Title: Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Arun Kapoor, Resolution Professional of CICIL Biochem Private Limited
Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 4676/MB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Mr. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Mr. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) held that the profits accrued during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') be allocated to the Financial Creditors when the Request for Resolution Plan ('RFRP') and the Resolution Plan are silent on the allocation of profits.
Liquidation Value Is More Than Resolution Plan , NCLT Allahabad Directs SRA To Match Liquidation Value
Case title: Hadirah Steels Pvt. Ltd. v Rana Heavy Engineering Ltd.
Case No.: CP (IB) No.50/ALD/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Allahabad Bench, comprising of Shri Praveen Gupta (Judicial Member) and Shri Ashish Verma (Technical Member), has directed the Successful Resolution Applicant to consider matching the resolution plan value at par with the liquidation value, which is on a higher side. The Successful Resolution Applicant is the Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor and also the sole member of Committee of Creditors (“CoC”).
“We are also conscious of the fact that commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in the matter of approval of resolution plan should be regarded. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the financial creditor who is member of CoC itself is the SRA as well, we therefore, find it justifiable in passing such directions to the SRA to consider matching the total plan value at par with the liquidation value with corresponding pro-rata rise in the amount of disbursement.”
NCLT Kolkata: Dispute On Forgery And Fabrication Of Document Cannot Be Decided By Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) In A Summary Proceeding Under IBC
Case Title: Abdul Hannan vs. Jai Jute and Industries Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 154/KB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that the dispute relating to forgery and fabrication of a document cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority in a summary proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC').
The Tribunal placed reliance on the various decisions of the NCLAT in Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Limited vs. K.P. Jayaram, Jaginder Singh Lather vs. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., Satori Global Limited v. Shailja Krishna, and Shri T.R. Arya v. Dilawari Motors Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that disputes as to whether the documents are forged or have been fabricated cannot be adjudicated by NCLT.
NCLT Kolkata: Police Complaint Before The Issuance Of The Demand Notice U/S 8 Of IBC Relating To Supply Of Inferior Goods Or Services Constitutes 'Pre-Existing Dispute'
Case Title: Abdul Hannan vs. Jai Jute and Industries Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 154/KB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that a Police Complaint, prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC prosecuting a dispute regarding the supply of inferior goods and/or service is a pre-existing dispute.
The Bench placed reliance on the NCLAT decision in Sherbahadur D. Yadav vs. M/s. Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd. wherein it observed that existence of complaints prior to the initiation of proceedings u/s 9 of IBC is to be considered as a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
Further reliance was placed on NCLAT decision in Mr. Anil J. Nemaavarkar vs. M/s. Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd,. wherein it was held that IBC is not for resolving disputes relating to service, benefits, and the remedy lies elsewhere.
Section 7 IBC Petition Can't Be Filed By Power Of Attorney Holder Unless Authorized By Board Resolution: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title: Axis Bank Limited vs Karvy Forde Search Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CP(IB) No. 249/7/HDB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising Dr Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has held that a petition under Section 7 of IBC cannot be filed by a 'power of attorney' holder unless duly authorized by a Board Resolution.
The NCLT examined the requirements for applying under Section 7(2) of IBC and referred to Form-1 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Entries in the form mandate submission of the name and address of the authorized person to apply on behalf of the financial creditor, along with an authorization letter. However, the form does not explicitly mention a 'power of attorney holder'.
The NCLT perused the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 7(1) of IBC, specifying persons authorized to apply on behalf of a financial creditor, which did not include 'power of attorney holders'.
NCLT Kolkata: Any Attachment Of Tainted Assets Of Corporate Debtor Before CIRP Commencement Would Always Be Available To Fulfill The Object Of IBC
Case Title: State Bank of India vs. Shree Mahalaxmi Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 130/KB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member), has held that Any attachment of tainted assets of a Corporate Debtor before the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') commencement would always be available to fulfill the object and goal of IBC.
NCLT Kolkata: Provisional Attachment Order Under PMLA Won't Bar Admission Of CIRP Against Corporate Debtor Under IBC
Case Title: State Bank of India vs. Shree Mahalaxmi Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 130/KB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that the Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA will not bar the admission of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under IBC.
NCLT Mumbai: Timeline Provided By CIRP Regulation 36A(6) Must Be Adhered To Strictly
Case Title: Shree Siddhivinayak Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajan Deshraj Agarwal and Anr.
Case No.: IA No. 2390 of 2023 In CP(IB) 518 (IB)2020
The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Mumbai, comprising Justice Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Mr. Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that the timeline provided by the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ('CIRP Regulation') 36A(6) must be adhered to strictly.
NCLT Chandigarh - Minimum Threshold Will Be Applicable To Any Amount Raised From Allottee
Case: Mr. Tek Chand Narula vs M/s Vatika Ltd.
Citation: CP (IB) No.528/Chd/Hry/2019 & IA No. 302/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh bench, comprising Justice Dr. P.S.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) and Shri Umesh Kumar Shukla (Technical Member), has held that the requirement of satisfying the minimum threshold of either 10% or 100 allottees will be applicable to any amount raised from an allottee, irrespective of whether the said allottee is alleging the default of interest or the principal amount.
IBBI
IBBI Issues Guidelines For Appointment Of Insolvency Professionals
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) issued guidelines for the process for appointing insolvency professionals (IPs) to roles such as interim resolution professionals (IRPs), liquidators, and bankruptcy trustees.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) on 10.05.2024 has published a Discussion Paper on “Strengthening the process of issuance of record of default by Information Utility”. It has also invited comments from public/stakeholders regarding proposed changes to the framework pertaining to the process of issuance of record of default by Information Utility”. The comments can be submitted online at www.ibbi.gov.in till 31.05.2024. The Discussion Paper primarily proposes changes to Strengthen the Process Of Issuance Of Record Of Default (Rod).
IBBI Amends CIRP Regulations W.E.F. 15th February 2024
Ref. No. IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG113
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has issued a notification dated 15.02.2024, whereby amendments have been made to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”). The key amendments are:
- Operating separate bank accounts for real estate projects: To ensure financial transparency and accountability, the amendment makes it mandatory to have a separate bank account for each real estate project under a corporate debtor.
- Monthly meetings of the committee of creditors (CoC): Under the amended dispensation, the resolution professional (RP) is mandated to convene a CoC meeting at least once in every thirty days, with a provision to extend the interval between meetings to a maximum of one meeting per quarter, if CoC so decides.
- Voting procedures: In place of provision of minimum period specified for the opening of the voting window with no upper limit, the amended regulation empowers the CoC to decide the period of opening of electronic voting window with a minimum of twenty-four hours and a maximum of seven days with further increments of twenty-four hours each. Further, to streamline the voting process, the amendment mandates that where the matters listed for voting have already received requisite majority vote, the RP shall provide one last opportunity to vote by extending the voting window by a maximum period of twenty-four hours.
- Approval of insolvency resolution process costs: With a view to enhance the oversight of the CoC over going concern costs, the amendment provides that the RP to seek approval from the CoC for all costs including going concern costs related to the insolvency resolution process.
- Disclosure of valuation methodology: With an aim to increase transparency and reduce disputes over valuation related issues, the amendment provide for explaining the valuation methodology to the members of the CoC before the computation of estimates.
- Disclosure of fair value in the information memorandum: For fostering informed participation in the process, the amendment provides that the fair value may be made part of the information memorandum (IM). However, the CoC, after recording the reasons, can decide not to share such an information where in it's considered view such a disclosure is not beneficial for the resolution.
- Flexibility in inviting resolution plans in real-estate cases: With a view that each project in a real estate case may need different treatment in terms of resolution, the amendment clarifies that after due examination, the CoC may direct the RP to invite separate plan for each project.
- Monitoring committee for implementation of resolution plan: The amendment enables the CoC to decide for constitution of a monitoring committee for overseeing the implementation of the resolution plan. The committee may include the RP, any other insolvency professional or any other person as its member. In case the RP is made part of the committee, the monthly fee payable to him shall not exceed the monthly fee received by him during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Continuation of the resolution process pending extension application: A clarification has been provided to ensure that RP continues to discharge his responsibilities under the resolution process till an application for extension is being decided by the Adjudicating Authority.
