IBC News
Holding The Resolution Plan To Be Discriminatory, The NCLAT Sets Aside The Plan For Piyush Shelters India Pvt. Ltd
The NCLAT in a Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Justice Jarat Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) in Amit Goel v. Piyush Shelters India Pvt. Ltd. set aside the Resolution Plan proposed by Maya Group on the ground that there was discriminatory treatment of the 'non-claimant' financial creditors, as compared to the...
After Approval By The Adjudicating Authority, The Resolution Plan Is No More A Confidential Document: NCLAT
The NCLAT in a Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member) in Association of Aggrieved Workmen of Jet Airways (India) Limited v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd held that after approval of the Resolution Plan, the Plan does not remain a confidential document, so as to deny its perusal to a claimant, who is aggrieved by the...
An Asset Can Be Kept Out Of Liquidation Estate If The Said Asset Is Sub-Judice Before The High Court:NCLAT
The NCLAT in a Bench consisting of Justice Jarat Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member) in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Sumit Binani held that an asset can be kept out of liquidation estate if the said asset is sub-judice before the High Court. Factual Backgroun: The Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd./Corporate Debtor was classified as an...
Approval Of COC Is Not Mandatory When Seeking Exclusion Of Time Under Regulation 40C. NCLAT
The NCLAT in a Bench comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) in the case of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Sandeep Chandna, differentiating between 'exclusion' and 'extension' of time under IBC held that the approval of the Committee of Creditors is not mandatory when seeking exclusion of time in view of Regulation 40C...
IBC| Statutory Authority Can't Raise Fresh Claim Against Corporate Debtor After Approval Of Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that no statutory authority, including the Income Tax authorities, can raise a fresh claim against a Corporate Debtor after the Resolution Plan was finalized and approved. A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench of High Court observed that entertaining undecided claims after the Resolution Plan was submitted, would...
Application Intentionally Withdrawn By Applicant And Subsequently Filed On The Same Transaction Will Be Barred By Res Judicata. NCLT Kochi
The Kochi Bench of NCLT in a Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Kumar Borah and Mr. Shyam Baby Gautam in Jose Samuel v. M/s Royal International Trade and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. has dismissed the application seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor, i.e. Royal International Trade and Allied Products Private Limited on the ground...
Guarantor Whose Guarantee Stands Invoked By Any Creditor Barred From Giving Resolution Plan, Though Insolvency Initiated By Another Creditor: SC On Sec 29A(h) IBC
The Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment interpreting the scope of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Section 29A IBC specifies the categories of persons who are not eligible to be resolution applicants.Sub-section (h) of Section 29A refers to persons whose guarantees stand invoked by the creditors of the corporate debtor. The exact wordings of the provision are...
A Successful Bidder Cannot Be Permitted To Wriggle Out Of Its Bid Claiming His Bid To Be A 'Conditional Offer'; NCLAT
The NCLAT, Principal Bench consisting of Justice Anant Bijay Singh and Ms. Shreesha Merla in the case of M/s. Visisth Services Limited v. S.V. Ramani held that a Successful Bidder cannot wriggle out of the contractual obligations and withdraw the bid after payment of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and seek refund of the amount on the ground that the offer made by the Bidder was a...
Refusing To Grant Interim Relief, NCLAT Admits The Amazon's Appeal Against CCI's Order
The NCLAT Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal and Mr. V.P. Singh in Amazon.com NV Holdings LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. refused to grant interim relief to Amazon against its plea challenging the order of the Competition Commission of India which suspended its deal with Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. The order was passed by the Competition Commission on 17th...
Since SC Extended Limitation, No Need To File Application For Condonation Of Delay; NCLAT Delhi
The Principal Bench of the NCLAT comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Jarat Kumar Jain and Dr. Alok Srivastava, in M/s. Essjay Ericsson Private Limited v. M/s. Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., has held that in order to seek the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, extending the period of limitation due...
FICCI & IBBI: Virtual Conference On 5 Years Of Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code
FICCI in association with IBBI is organizing a Virtual Conference on '5 Years of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code- Looking Forward and Beyond' on Thursday, 20th January, 2022. The Conference has been organized to mark 5 years of the implementation of the IBC with the objective to ensure the success of IBC and chart the way forward. The target group for the Conference is Bankers,...
Amazon-Group Files Appeal At The NCLAT Against CCI Order And Also Appeal In The Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court Order
The Amazon-Group has challenged the Competition Commission of India's order dated 17.12.2021 at the NCLAT, which suspended its deal to acquire 49% stake in FCPL, on the ground that Amazon failed to disclose the true and complete details for the purpose of the Combination. It was held by the Commission that Amazon had misrepresented that its decision to pursue the Combination was based...