Recall Notice Issued During Cut-Off Period U/S 10A Of IBC Doesn't Alter Date Of Default If Default Occurred Before Cut-Off Period: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the issuance of a recall notice during the cut off period specified under Section 10A (i.e. from 25.03.2020 to 25.03.2021) does not defer the date of default if the default...

Settlement Plan U/S 12A Of IBC Cannot Be Considered By CoC After Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra affirmed that a settlement proposal under Section 12A of the IBC cannot be put before the CoC after the CoC has approved the resolution plan. The tribunal further observed that with the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC, the plan becomes inter se binding between the CoC and the SRA and hence no settlement...

'IBC Prevails Over SEZ Act', Supreme Court Rejects Noida SEZ's Claim

The Supreme Court dismissed the Noida Special Economic Zone's (NSEZ) plea challenging the NCLAT's decision to approve a resolution plan that granted Rs. 50 Lacs against NSEZ's admitted claim of about Rs. 6 Crore.The NCLAT reduced the claim amount, partly due to penalties related to the renewal of the sub-lease and transfer charges.The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine...

IBC Quarterly Digest: July To September 2024

Supreme CourtFree Copy Of NCLT Order & Copy Of Order Obtained On Paying Cost Are 'Certified Copies' For Filing NCLAT Appeal : Supreme CourtCase Title: State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 766The Supreme Court today (September 27) set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which refused to condone delay in filling...

Exploring The Priority Of Consideration For Insolvency Applications U/S 7 Of IBC Over Arbitration Applications U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act

In a recent decision titled Century Aluminium Company Limited v. Religare Finvest Limited (2024), the NCLAT grappled with an important question whether, when an insolvency petition under section 7 of the IBC is filed and yet to be admitted, subsequent filing of an arbitration application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act would be maintainable or not. The tribunal observed that when...

CoC Entitled To Liquidate Corporate Debtor If No Approved Resolution Plan Is Placed Before Adjudicating Authority Within Statutory CIRP Period: NCLAT

The NCLAT bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) have observed that the statutory construct of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) in terms of Section 33 empowers the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to decide to liquidate the Corporate Debtor any time before the approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The...

IBC Cases Weekly Round Up: 21st October To 27th October 2024

NOMINAL INDEXGLAS TRUST COMPANY LLC Vs BYJU RAVEENDRAN | Diary No. - 35406/2024, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 826VIDYASAGAR PRASAD VERSUS UCO BANK & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 825GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLC Vs BYJU RAVEENDRAN | Diary No. - 35406/2024, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 826Maha Mineral Mining and Benefication Private v. Gram Panchayat, Gowari, 2024:BHC-NAG:11478-DBMajor Atul Dev (Retd.) & Ors. vs. Union...

When Both Arbitration And Insolvency Petitions Are Pending, Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Has To Be Decided First: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Barun Mitra and Arun Baroka held that if at the time of filing a petition under section 7 of the IBC, arbitration proceedings are pending, the Adjudicating Authority is obligated to first decide the petition under section 7 and record a satisfaction as to the existence of a debt and default. Pendency of the arbitration proceedings...

Resolution Plan Approved By CoC Cannot Be Withdrawn Unless Section 30(2) Of IBC Is Breached: NCLAT

The NCLAT Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Barun Mitra and Arun Baroka affirmed that the law is well settled that the Resolution Plan which is approved by the CoC cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and any clause which contemplate withdrawal of the plan is unenforceable unless section 30(2) of the IBC is breached. Brief Facts These two Appeals have been filed by the same...

S.10A Of IBC Cannot Be Considered Valid Defence If Financial Creditor Establishes Valid Default Date: NCLAT Principal Bench

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member Technical) dismissed an appeal filed by a suspended director of the corporate debtor (Point Developers Ltd.) challenging the order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench admitting Section 7 application filed by the financial creditor through IRP.Background...

Lease Rent/Damages Subsequent To Commencement Of CIRP Cannot Be Treated As CIRP Cost: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra held that lease rent/damages due to the corporate debtor after the commencement of the CIRP cannot be considered as CIRP cost that too when an arbitral award with respect to the same amount had already been secured which could not be executed due to moratorium under section 14 of the IBC. Brief Facts This Appeal...

Once Debt And Default Satisfied, Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Has To Be Admitted, Vidharbha Ruling Cannot Be Applied Mechanically: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justices Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Mr. Naresh Salecha and Mr. Indevar Pandey affirmed that a petition under section 7 of the IBC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there are chances of the amount being recovered from other proceedings which will satisfy the entire debt of the creditors. The tribunal further observed that the ratio of the Vidharbha ruling...