“Inappropriate, Almost Bordering On Contempt”: SC Deprecates NCLAT Order Impeding Implementation Of SC Order

Case Title: Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v Iirf India Realty Xii Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9062/2022

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka while adjudicating an appeal has set aside a status quo order passed by NCLAT Delhi which impeded the implementation of an order passed by the Supreme Court. The Bench has deprecated the NCLAT order while observing that the same is inappropriate and almost bordering on contempt.

“We fail to appreciate how a status quo order could have been passed by a Bench of the NCLAT seeking to impede the implementation of the order of this Court. If there was a grievance about the implementation of the order of the Court, only this Court could have got into it. We consider the conduct of the Bench not only inappropriate but almost bordering on contempt. We strongly deprecate the order passed by the NCLAT Bench. We thus, set aside the order of status quo in those proceedings and insofar as that appeal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (INS.) No.1472/2020, is concerned, the same be placed before a Bench presided over by the Chairman.”

Borrowers Enter OTS ; Supreme Court Directs Bank To Re-Consider Decision Of Wilful Default

Case Title: Orbitz Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank Of Baroda & Anr.

Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15751/2022

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, has directed the Bank to re-consider its decision of declaring the Borrowers (Petitioners) as wilful defaulters in light of changed circumstances, as the Bank had subsequently entered into One Time Settlement (OTS) with the Borrowers. The Borrowers have been making payments towards the OTS. The Bench has also granted liberty to the Borrowers to avail legal remedy if the Bank’s decision on their representation is not favourable to them.

Sabka Vishwas Scheme: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC Moratorium

Case Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India

Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15, CA 8957 OF 2022

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices M R Shah and Justice B V Nagarathna has remarked that “No one can be expected to do the impossible” while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium under IBC being imposed on it. "The appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do. There was a legal impediment in the way of the appellant to make any payment during the moratorium. Even if the appellant wanted to deposit settlement amount within the stipulated period, it could not do so in view of the bar under the IBC as, during the moratorium, no payment could have been made. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot be rendered remediless and should not be made to suffer due to a legal impediment which was the reason for it and/or not doing the act within the prescribed time." Allowing the appeal, the court directed that the payment of Rs.1,24,28,500/- already deposited by the appellant be appropriated towards settlement dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019” and the appellant be issued discharge certificate.

IBC - Delay In Filing CIRP Application Condonable On Sufficient Reasons: Supreme Court

Case Title: Sabarmati Gas Limited v Shah Alloys Limited

Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9, CA 1669 of 2020

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Justice C T Ravikumar has held that delay in initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is condonable on sufficient grounds. "When the limitation period for initiating CIRP under Section 9, IBC is to be reckoned from the date of default, as opposed to the date of commencement of IBC and the period prescribed therefor, is three years as provided by Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same would commence from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim for condonation of the delay when once the proceeding concerned is found filed beyond the period of limitation..As relates Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing ‘sufficient cause’ is the only criterion for condoning delay. ‘Sufficient Cause’ is the cause for which a party could not be blamed.

IBC- Once Resolution Plan Is Approved, No Modifications Are Permissible: Supreme Court

Case Title: SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v Deccan Chronicle Marketeers & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held that the declaration made by the NCLT to the effect that the trademarks “Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi”, which originally belonged to Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. (“DCHL/Corporate Debtor”), continues to be under the ownership of DCHL post the approval of resolution plan, would amount to impermissible modification of resolution plan as the same was silent on this aspect. The Bench upheld the NCLAT order wherein it was held that any right or ownership claimed after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC stands extinguished and accordingly the Successful Resolution Applicant could only use the Corporate Debtor’s existing trademarks without financial implication, but such trademarks could no longer be considered under ownership of the Corporate Debtor.

IBC- Resolution Professional Entitled To Take Control Of Corporate Debtor's Rights In Assets Licensed To Third Parties : Supreme Court

Case Title: Victory Iron Works Ltd. v Jitendra Lohia & Anr.

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, has held that a resolution professional is entitled to take control of the rights of a corporate debtor in assets which are licensed to third parties. Such an action of the RP will come within the ambit of Section 25 of IBC. Further, the assets owned by a third-party, but in the possession of the Corporate Debtor held under contractual arrangements, are excluded from the definition of “assets” in Section 18 of IBC, however, the said exclusion does not extend to Section 25 of IBC. Therefore, the Explanation to Section 18 is inapplicable to Section 25 of IBC.

Insolvency Resolution Of Company Will Not Extinguish Director's Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court

Case Title: Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and JB Pardiwala has held that approval of resolution plan of a corporate debtor under the IBC will not extinguish the criminal liability of its erstwhile director under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The company's director cannot seek discharge from N.I. Act proceedings on the ground that creditor’s debt stood settled in the proceedings under IBC.

IBC | Section 9 Petition Not To Be Dismissed If Few Invoices Are Time Barred But Remaining Invoices Are Not; Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v M/S K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, has held that when a petition under Section 9 of IBC is filed based on several invoices and some of the invoices are time barred, then NCLT must consider the remaining invoices which are within limitation and whether they cross the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore. The Section 9 petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that some of the invoices are time barred.

IBC| Principle Of Commercial Wisdom Not Validate A Decision Taken By CoC In Contravention Of Law: Supreme Court

Case Title: M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath, has held that the principle of ‘Commercial Wisdom’ of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) cannot brush aside the shortcomings of the CoC in cases where decision making was done in contravention to a law which is in force for the time being. The Bench has upheld the NCLAT’s order whereby the Successful Resolution Applicant was declared ineligible in terms of Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, since he had submitted two resolution plans, one in individual capacity and one in the capacity of Managing Trustee of the Trust.

IBC| Ineligibility Of Resolution Applicant As Per S.164(2)(b) Companies Act Can't Be Presumed Unless Competent Authority Declares Disqualification: Supreme Court

Case Title: M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath, has held that a resolution applicant cannot be rendered ineligible to submit a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), by assuming his/her disqualification under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, unless a categorical order disqualifying him/her to act as a director of any company is passed by the competent authority. Further, there is no concept of ‘deemed disqualification’ under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013.

No Priority For Workers' Dues After Liquidation Of Company Under IBC: Supreme Court Upholds Section 327(7) Of Companies Act 2013

Case Title : Moser Baer Karamchari Union through its President Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 421/2019 and connected cases.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has held upheld the constitutional validity of Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, 2013, which holds that workers' dues will not get preferential payment in the event a company undergoes liquidation as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

"The enactment of the IBC and Section 53 of IBC necessitated amendment to the Companies Act 2013. The object and purpose of amending the Companies Act 2013 and to exclude Sections 326 and 327 in the event of liquidation of a company under IBC seem to be that there may not be two different provisions in respect to the winding up/ liquidation of a company. Therefore, in view of the enactment of the IBC, it was necessary to exclude the applicability of Section 326 and 327 of the 2013 Act, which cannot be said to be arbitrary, as contended on behalf of the petitioners",

IBC | Date Of Order Pronouncement & Time Taken To Provide Certified Copy Excluded From Limitation Period For Appeal To NCLAT: Supreme Court

Case Title: Sanket Kumar Agarwal & Anr v APG Logistics Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala, has held that for the purpose of computing limitation for filing of appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the time taken by Tribunal for providing certified copy of order to be challenged ought to be excluded from computation of limitation.

Further, the date on which the order was pronounced must be excluded while computing limitation for filing of appeal against such order. Accordingly, the Bench has set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), wherein NCLAT had erroneously included the date of order pronouncement in limitation period and dismissed the appeal for being barred by limitation.

IBC | NCLT Has To Admit Sec 7 Petition If Debt Is Due; Decision In 'Vidarbha Industries' Based On Its Facts: Supreme Court

Case Title: M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, has held that if the existence of a financial debt and its default on the part of Corporate Debtor has been proved, then the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) is left with no option apart from admitting the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The only ground on which a petition under Section 7 of IBC can be rejected is when the debt in question has not become due and payable(M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank & Ors.).

Further, the decision in Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 407, still holds good and the NCLT must admit a petition under Section 7 of IBC once existence of debt and default is established. The decision in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587, was passed based on the facts of that particular case and it did not hold anything contrary to the Innoventive Industries judgment.

Supertech Insolvency: Supreme Court Approves 'Project Wise Resolution' Plan

Case Title: Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v Ram Kishore Arora & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 436

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, has declined to grant any interim relief in respect of order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) directing ‘project wise insolvency resolution process’ of Supertech Ltd.’s Eco Village-II project. The Bench has observed that constituting Committee of Creditors (CoC) for all the projects of Supertech Limited would affect the ongoing projects and cause hardship to the homebuyers.

The Bench has directed that during the pendency of the appeal, any process beyond voting on the Resolution Plan should not be undertaken without specific orders of the Supreme Court in respect to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Eco Village-II project.

Remedies Against Third-Parties Not Available Under Section 66 Of IBC: Supreme Court

Case Title: Glukrich Capital Pvt Ltd vs The State of West Bengal

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, affirmed that the remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC. The Bench further held, “We are of the considered opinion that in such circumstances, it is for the Resolution Professional or the successful resolution applicant, as the case may be, to take such civil remedies against third party, for recovery of dues payable to corporate debtor, which may be available in law. The remedy against third party, however, is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and the civil remedies which may be available in law, are independent of the said Section"

Is Resolution Professional A 'Public Servant' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act? Supreme Court To Examine

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7029/2023

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, has issued notice in a plea challenging the ruling of the Jharkhand High Court that a Resolution Professional (RP) will be considered a ‘public servant’ under Section 2(c)(v) and Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The High Court had opined that the Resolution Professional performs ‘public duty’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the PC Act and hence is a ‘public servant’ liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PC Act”). The impugned judgment was passed by the High Court while rejecting the petition praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding instituted against an Insolvency Professional, as well as the FIR registered for the offence under Section 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act) of the PC Act.

Google Appeals To Supreme Court Against NCLAT Order Upholding Rs. 1337.76 Crores Penalty Imposed By CCI

The tech giant Google has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the National Company Law appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi, whereby the imposition of Rs. 1337.76 Crores penalty on Google by the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) was upheld. Google has been penalized for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in denial of market access for competing search apps.

NCLAT

Nature Of Financial Debt Doesn’t Change Upon Breach Of Consent Terms: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Priyal Kantilal Patel v IREP Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1423 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held the nature of financial debt would not change on account of breach of the consent terms. The Bench has upheld the initiation of CIRP against a Corporate Debtor upon a subsequent Section 7 petition, which was filed after the Corporate Debtor breached the consent terms entered into in the earlier Section 7 petition.

“The mere fact that in earlier company petition, consent terms was arrived, which consent terms was breached by the corporate debtor, the financial debt which was claimed by the financial creditor would not be wiped out nor the nature and character of financial debt shall be changed on account of breach of the consent terms. Permitting such interpretation shall be giving premium to the corporate debtor who breach the consent terms.”

NCLAT Delhi Sets Aside The Order Of Private Sale Of Bhuvee Stenovate Private Limited

Case Title: State Bank Of India V. Bhuvee Stenovate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1013 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Bench has set aside the order of NCLT Kolkata which permitted a private sale of Bhuvee Stenovate Private Limited for an amount of Rs.61.05 Crores, even though the request for Private Sale had been made by the Intervener purchaser Laser Solar LLP.

The order and consequent sale was set aside by the NCLAT Bench, while laying down the law relating to sale proceeds during liquidation. It was held as under:

· Liquidator has to conduct the Private Sale and give opportunity to others to compete

· Liquidator has to seek permission from the Adjudicating Authority to proceed with a Private Sale

· Liquidator has to prepare a strategy to approach interested buyers for assets to be sold by a Private Sale.

· Adjudicating Authority could not have concluded the sale of the Corporate Debtor without giving an opportunity to the liquidator to take steps for Private Sale.

Assets Of Subsidiary Company Cannot Be Dealt With In CIRP Of Holding Company: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) v Roma Unicon Designex Consortium

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 180 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the assets of the Subsidiary Company cannot be dealt with in the CIRP of Holding Company. A parcel of land was leased by Greater NOIDA Authority to the subsidiary of Corporate Debtor (Holding Company). In the CIRP of Corporate Debtor, the approved Resolution Plan proposed to transfer the subsidiary’s land to the Successful Resolution Applicant, without obtaining Greater NOIDA Authority’s consent. The Bench has set aside the orders approving the resolution plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant.

“Misconceived, Not Maintainable”: NCLAT Delhi Dismisses Appeal Filed By IBBI

Case Title: Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India v GTL Infrastructure & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 103 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”), challenging the dismissal of a Section 7 petition in a matter to which IBBI was not a party. The IBBI filed the appeal while contending that the petition was dismissed upon a wrong interpretation of Section 7 by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT Bench observed that IBBI is not aggrieved by the Adjudicating Authority’s order and has nothing to do with the litigation between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor.

Partial Payment Of PF & Gratuity Dues Violative Of Section 30(2)(E) Of IBC: NCLAT Chennai Reiterates

Case Title: Mrs. C.G. Vijyalakshmi v Shri Kumar Rajan & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 29 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that Provident Fund and Gratuity dues have to be paid in full to the workmen/employees till the CIRP commencement date. The Bench held that the approved resolution plan violated Section 30(2) of IBC, by paying only 35.13% of the PF and Gratuity dues and thus treating the workmen/employees as Secured Creditors.

Section 9 IBC Application Not A Suit, Hence Bar U/S 69(2) Of Partnership Act Not Attracted: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Rourkela Steel Syndicate v Metistech Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 924 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that an application under Section 9 of IBC is not a suit and hence, the bar under Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not applicable to a Section 9 application. The Bench relied on the Supreme Court judgment in B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, (2019 11 SCC 633), wherein it was held that Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is fully applicable to applications under Section 7 & 9 of IBC. Since Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to a suit, this indicates that applications under Section 7 & 9 are not a suit.

Liquidator Has No Jurisdiction To Reject/Modify Already Admitted Claims, Can Approach AA For Modification: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Gupta v Canara Bank

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1015 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the Liquidator has no jurisdiction to reject or modify already admitted claims, if he receives any additional information. The Liquidator can only approach the Adjudicating Authority for modification of the admitted claims.

Income Tax Dues Are Government Dues; Income Tax Authority Is A Secured Creditor: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v M/s Assam Company India Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 243 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the dues of the Income Tax dues are Government dues and Income Tax Authorities are a secured creditor. The Bench placed reliance on Supreme Court judgment in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Limited, Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, wherein it was held that, “the State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority.”

Principal Amount Paid In Full, Section 9 Application Not Maintainable For Recovery Of Interest: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Rohit Motawat v Madhu Sharma

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1152 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that an application under Section 9 of IBC being pursued only for interest component, while principal amount has been paid in full, is not maintainable. The spirit of IBC is resolution of debt and not for ‘recovery’. Reliance was placed on Karnataka High Court judgment in Jyothi Limited Vs. Boving Fouress Limited, Company Petition No. 48 of 1998, wherein it was held that interest cannot be claimed over an invoice which is a unilateral document, unless it is signed by the parties.

No Acknowledgement Of Liability Based On An Unrealized Cheque: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. Primee Silicones (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 299 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that a cheque which has not been encashed, cannot amount to an ‘acknowledgement of liability’ in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

NCLAT Extends Benefit Of Limitation Computation To Appeals Filed Between 01.11.2022 To 23.12.2022

F.No. 23/4/2022-Estt./NCLAT

On 24.12.2022 the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) had issued fresh directions for computation of limitation for filing of appeals before NCLAT. Earlier the benefit of order dated 24.12.2022 was only available to appeals filed on and after 24.12.2022. However, the NCLAT vide an Order dated 21.02.2023 has extended the benefit of Order dated 24.12.2022 to appeals which have been filed between 01.11.2022 to 23.12.2022.

Directions For Computation Of Limitation

On 24.12.2022, the NCLAT had issued fresh directions for computation of limitation for filing of appeals before NCLAT. The directions are as follows:

• The Limitation shall be computed from the date of e-filing.
• The hard copy has to be filed within 7 days of e-filing. However, the Competent Authority is at liberty to notify to extend the period of filing hard copy in case of any unforeseen exigency.
• In a case where hard copy is filed after 7 days, the appeal will be placed before the Tribunal for appropriate order.
• The requirement of filing Appeals by electronic mode shall continue along with mandatory filing of the Appeals as per Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

NCLAT Delhi Stays Insolvency Proceedings Against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.

Case Title: Punit Goenka v Indusind Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 232/2023.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has stayed the NCLT order dated 22.02.2023, whereby Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) was initiated against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (formerly Zee Telefilms Ltd.) is an Indian media conglomerate owned by Essel Group, engaged in media and entertainment business. Zee had given India its first private satellite TV channel in 1992 and now also runs Over The Top (OTT) online streaming platform named Zee5.

Defences Of ‘Pre-Existing Dispute’ Or ‘No Amount Due’ Can Be Raised Directly In Reply To Section 9 Application: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Greymatter Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v Pro Sportify Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. 1043 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that IBC does not prevent the Corporate Debtor from establishing defences of ‘Pre-existing dispute’ or ‘No amount due’ through its Reply to Section 9 application and supporting documents, even if it failed to respond to the Section 8 Demand Notice within 10 days of receipt.

Shifting Entire Blame On IRP Not Justified; Creditors Must Also Play Catalytic Role In CIRP: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Shri Guru Containers v Jitendra Palande

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.106 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that creditors must not shift the entire blame on the IRP on grounds of non-performance of duty and make him the scapegoat. It is equally important for the creditors to play a catalytic role in the insolvency resolution process given the creditor-driven regime of IBC. The rigours of similar standards of discipline should also apply on the creditors.

NCLAT Delhi Sets Aside Rs. 25000 Cost Imposed On Resolution Professional By AA

Case Title: Sanjai Kumar Gupta v Gouri Prasad Goenka

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.70 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has set aside an order whereby the Adjudicating Authority had imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on Resolution Professional for allegedly filing a frivolous application. The Bench observed that the orders of the Adjudicating Authority depicted that Suspended Director was neither cooperating with the Resolution Professional nor complying with the directions of Adjudicating Authority. Further, the Adjudicating Authority directed personal appearance of Suspended Director twice and noted the non-cooperation of the latter. The sudden turn of events where the application was rendered infructuous and frivolous by the Adjudicating Authority is not explained in the order dated 02.12.2022.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Liquidation Of M/S Ajanta Offset And Packaging Limited

Case Title: Govind Prasad Todi & Anr. v Satya Narayan Guddeti & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1125 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has directed the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, M/s Ajanta Offset and Packaging Limited. Bench had also set aside the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Suspended Board of Directors. It has been held that the Successful Resolution Applicants, being the suspended promoters of the Corporate Debtor, cannot avail the exemptions from ineligibility under clause (c) and (h) of Section 29A of the Code. They could not submit a Resolution plan by registering as an MSME in view of section 240A of the Code after the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

AA Empowered To Direct Tenant To Vacate Premises Of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s. Jhanvi Rajpal Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v R.P. of Rajpal Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1417 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the Adjudicating Authority is empowered under Section 60(5) of IBC to direct a tenant to vacate the property of Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT Bench has upheld the decision of Adjudicating Authority directing the Tenant to vacate the Corporate Debtor’s property, which impeded implementation of the approved Resolution Plan.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Dismissal Of Wave Megacity’s Section 10 Application By AA

Case Title: Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited v Rakesh Taneja & Ors

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 918 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), had upheld the dismissal of Section 10 of IBC application on behalf of Wave Megacity Centre by the Adjudicating Authority. The Bench observed that the Adjudicating Authority is not obliged to admit application under Section 10 of IBC if the same has been filed fraudulently upon malicious intent.

When COC Approves A Resolution Plan, It Is Presumed To Be Viable And Feasible: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1489 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Kanthi Narahari (Judicial Member) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that when the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approves a Resolution Plan in its commercial wisdom, it is presumed that the Resolution Plan is viable and feasible. The Bench further observed that it is incumbent upon the Authorized Representative of the homebuyers to obtain instructions to vote for any agenda item where CoC obtain votes. Where there is no voting of the CoC in an agenda item, the Authorized Representative’s opinion can be taken note of and considered in the CoC meeting.

NCLAT Issues Fresh Directions For Computation Of Limitation In Filing Of Appeals, Withdraws Earlier Directions

F.No. 23/4/2022-Estt./NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) vide an Order dated 24.12.2022 has issued fresh directions for computation of limitation for filing of appeals before NCLAT. The period of limitation shall be computed from the date of e-filing and hard copy has to be filed within 7 days of e-filing. However, the Competent Authority is at liberty to extend the period of filing hard copy in case of any unforeseen exigency. If hard copy is filed after 7 days, the appeal will be placed before the Tribunal for appropriate order. Further, the requirement of filing Appeals by electronic mode shall continue along with mandatory filing of the Appeals as per Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

The directions are effective from 24.12.2022 onwards. NCLAT has also recalled its previous circular dated 21.10.2022 bearing F.No.10/37/2018-NCLAT regarding computation of limitation.

Google V Competition Commission: NCLAT Directs Google To Deposit 10% Of Penalty As Interim Measure

Case Title: Google LLC & Anr. v Competition Commission of India

Case No.: Competition Appeal (AT) (ND) No.01 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has admitted Google’s appeal against CCI order dated 20.10.2022, subject to deposit of 10% of penalty amount of Rs. 1337.76 Crores. The Bench has declined to grant any interim relief. The appeal has been filed by Google against the order of Competition Commission of India (CCI), wherein it was concluded that Google perpetuated its dominant position in the online search market, resulting in denial of market access for competing search apps. Further, Google abused its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, to protect its position in online general search. The appeal before NCLAT is next listed on 03.04.2023 for final hearing.

Re-Constituted Bench Cannot Pass An Order Without Re-Hearing The Parties: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Rajesh Narang v Durha Vitrak Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INS) NO.612/2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member), has held that after re-constitution of Bench no order should be passed without re-hearing the matter. It was further observed that when the first order was passed on 20.05.2021, one of the Technical Member was not a party at the time of hearing and reserving orders. For this reason alone, the order dated 20.05.2021 was declared void and fresh hearing was conducted on 31.05.2021. The Bench observed that the order dated 20.05.2021 was reproduced in order dated 31.05.2021, without further hearing or rehearing. The Bench set aside the Order of liquidation dated 31.05.2021 and remitted the matter back to Adjudicating Authority to re-examine and consider changing the Resolution Professional.

AA Obliged To Direct For Liquidation Only If COC’S Decision To Liquidate Is In Accordance With IBC: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Hero Fincorp Limited v M/s Hema Automotive Private Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1540 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority’s obligation to direct for liquidation shall arise only when the CoC’s decision to liquidate is in accordance with IBC. The CoC resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor after preparation of the Information Memorandum and before the period for inviting Expression of Interest could expire. The NCLAT Bench upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s decision to reject the liquidation application.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Removal Of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure’s Resolution Professional By AA

Case Title: Srigopal Choudary v SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1443 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s decision to remove the Resolution Professional of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. The Bench has held that an authority empowered to appoint also has the right to remove/dismiss. Further, if the Resolution Professional is not convening the meeting of CoC for his replacement, then Adjudicating Authority can invoke its inherent jurisdiction and replace the Resolution Professional.

Google Play Store Dispute: NCLAT Delhi Directs Google To Deposit 10% Of Penalty Amount

Case Title: Alphabet Inc. & Ors. v Competition Commission of India & Ors.

Case No.: Competition App. (AT) No. 4 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has admitted Google’s appeal against CCI order dated 25.10.2022 subject to deposit of 10% of penalty amount of Rs. 936.44 Crores. The Bench has declined to grant any interim relief. The matter is next listed on 17.04.2023.

On 25.10.2022, the CCI Bench by invoking its powers under Section 27 of the Competition Act, had imposed monetary penalty of Rs. 936.44 Crore on Google for abusing its dominant position with respect to its Play Store policies, apart from issuing a cease-and-desist order. The Commission had also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline. In January 2023, Google filed an appeal before the NCLAT, challenging the Order passed by CCI imposing a penalty of Rs. 936.44 Crore on Google.

“No Concept Of Automatic Restoration Of Any Water Connection”: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation v Bhadrashree Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that water connection cannot be automatically restored to a Successful Resolution Applicant. A proper application has to be made seeking restoration of water connection.

“We only observe that there is no concept of automatic restoration of any water connection and a proper application is required to be made following the procedure and only benefit Successful Resolution Applicant can claim is extinguishment of the dues which are not part of the Resolution Plan.”

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Dismissal Of Application Seeking Restraint On Oyo From Proceeding With IPO

Case Title: Jagadish v Oyo Hotels & Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1408 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order rejecting applications filed by Operational Creditor to direct Oyo not to proceed with its IPO and furnish its financial statements. The reliefs sought by the Operational Creditor have been regarded as premature, since CIRP has not yet been initiated against Oyo. Oyo Hotels & Homes Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) owns and operates a chain of hotels across India under the banner ‘OYO’. Recently, the Corporate Debtor announced Initial Public Offering (IPO) of its shares and the IPO is still under process.

‘Filed Only For Recovery Of Balance Interest Amount’: NCLAT Delhi Upholds Dismissal Of Section 9 Petition

Case Title: Permali Wallace Pvt. Ltd. v Narbada Forest Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 36 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s dismissal of a Section 9 petition, which was filed merely for recovery of balance interest amount in view of a settlement agreement and not for resolution of the Corporate Debtor. The Bench placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Swiss Ribbon Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17, wherein it was held that IBC is not a recovery proceeding.

Section 17 Of Limitation Act Inapplicable Where Limitation Is Prescribed For Appeal: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v NRC Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 13 of 2023.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that Section 17(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 deals with period of limitation in the case of any suit or application. On the face of it, Section 17(1)(c) does not come into play in an Appeal when limitation is prescribed for an Appeal.

Landowner In A Development Agreement Not A Financial Creditor: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. v Sanjay Kundra & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 46 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that a landowner in a development agreement is not a financial creditor within the meaning of Section 5(8) of IBC and cannot be included in the Committee of Creditors. The Bench observed that the Development Agreement clearly states that the Landowner was a collaborator in the development agreement and not a financial creditor. There was no disbursement for time value of money by the Landowner within meaning of Section 5(8) of the IBC.

Operational Creditors Only Entitled To Minimum Of The Liquidation Value: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Dharmindra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v Rajendra Kumar Jain

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1477 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that Operational Creditors are only entitled for minimum of the liquidation value.

The Bench observed that the Liquidation value of the Appellant/Operational Creditor was Nil. Even the Operational Creditors which are Government and whose verified claim is Rs. 295.18 Crores, were paid NIL. The requirement for the obligation for payment of amount to the Operational Creditor is under Section 30(2)(b) and the plan had not violated the said provision.

No Condonation Beyond 45 Days, IBC Overrides Limitation Act : NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. Platinum Rent A Car (India) Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Quest Offices Limited

Case No.: Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.448/2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that Section 238 of IBC overrides Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Bench declined to condone a delay of 55 days in filing of appeal, which was caused due to time taken to obtain certified copy of order. The Bench further held that Rules of Procedure neither create any right in favour of a person, nor create a Cause of Action. If a Statute requires a certain remedy to be exercised in a particular manner and time, then the same cannot be exercised in any other manner except for the one specified.

After Adoption Of Swiss Challenge Method, RA Not Allowed To Submit Revised Plan: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Jindal Stainless Ltd. v Mr. Shailendra Ajmera

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1058 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that after adoption of Swiss Challenge Method to find out the best plan, one Resolution Applicant cannot be allowed to submit a revised plan. The Bench placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Ngaitlang Dhar vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure Private Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3665-3666 of 2020, and held that after adoption of Swiss Challenge Method to find out the best plan, one Resolution Applicant cannot be allowed to submit a revised plan.

The Bench observed that the decision of CoC to vote on the Resolution Plan after completion of Challenge Process and not to further accept any modification of the plan, should not be interfered with. The Application was filed by Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. on 07.08.2022, when CoC had already resolved the vote on all the plans and voting had also commenced w.e.f. 07.08.2022.

Withdrawal Application U/S 12a Can’t Be Entertained After Approval Of Resolution Plan By COC: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Hem Singh Bharana v M/s Pawan Doot Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1481 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that once the Committee of Creditors approve a resolution plan, no withdrawal application under Section 12A of IBC can be entertained. Approval of a Resolution Plan by the CoC prohibits the Resolution Applicant to modify or withdraw from the Plan, the same embargo is placed on CoC from changing its stand. It was observed that the Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore laid down that after approval by the CoC of a Resolution Plan, CoC itself is bound by its decision and cannot be allowed to go back from its decision and pass any other resolution.

NCLAT Rejects Reliance Capital’s Creditor Plea To Vacate Status Quo Order

Case Title: Vistra ITCL v. Torrent Investments

Case No.: CA(AT)(Ins) 87/2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), disposed off the appeal filed by the Reliance Capital Creditor namely Vistra ITCL against the NCLT Mumbai order dated 23.01.2023. Torrent Investment which emerged as the successful bidder for Reliance Capital with a bid of Rs. 8640 Crores, filed an application before NCLT Mumbai challenging the fresh revised bid of Rs. 9400 Crores submitted by Hinduja Group and the NCLT Mumbai vide its order dated 03.01.2023 directed to maintain status quo.

Subsequently, the COC of Reliance Capital decided to hold another round of auction which was challenged by Torrent Investment before NCLT Mumbai. NCLT Mumbai heard the parties reserved the order on 23.01.2023 and directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the CIRP of Reliance Capital until the order is pronounced in the week commencing 30^th January. Vistra ITCL contended that NCLT cannot interfere with the COC commercial wisdom to approve an extended round of challenge for the Prospective Resolution Applicants of Reliance Capital. The NCLAT Bench was not inclined to pass any interim order and thereafter Vistra ITCL sought permission to withdraw the appeal and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

Benefit U/S 10A Of IBC Can Only Be Claimed When Default Occurs During Prohibited Period: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Vishal Agarwal v ICICI Prudential Real Estate AIF-I & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1016 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that benefit under Section 10A of IBC can only be claimed when there is clear default during the prohibited period. The Bench upheld admission of a Section 7 petition wherein default had occurred prior to 25.03.2020.

Shareholders Have No Locus To Challenge The Initiation Of CIRP Against Corporate Debtor: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Nirej Vadakkedathu Paul v Sunstar Hotels and Estates Private Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 142 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that shareholders of Corporate Debtor have no locus to challenge the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Bench has upheld the initiation of CIRP against M/s McDowell Holdings Limited.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Remitting Of Resolution Plan Back To COC For Compliance Of Sec 30(2) IBC

Case Title: Noble Marine Metals Co Wll V Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 653 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has upheld the order of Adjudicating Authority whereby a Resolution Plan was remitted back to the Committee of Creditors for making changes, only to the extent of a clause which provided for mandatory release of the personal guarantee given by the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor. The Bench held that of a Resolution Plan does not satisfy the parameters of Section 30(2)(e) of IBC, then the same can be sent back to CoC for review.

'Assets', Have Proved To Be `Fictitious’/`Fraudulent’, Created In The`Books Of Accounts’, With An Intent To `Defraud’ The ‘Creditors’; NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Mr. Shibu Job Cheeran & Ors. v Mr. Ashok Velamur Seshadri

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 350 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that for an application under Section 66 of IBC to succeed, it must be proved that (i) Directors participated in carrying on business of the Corporate Debtor despite knowing likely insolvency of the Corporate Debtor; and (ii) Business of the Corporate Debtor has been carried out with an intent to defraud the creditors.

Lease Premium & Lease Rent Not Included In Explanation To Section 14(1)(D) Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Agarwal v New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 622 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that Explanation to Section 14(1)(d) of IBC does not include lease premium or lease rent amount.

NCLT Cannot Decide Controversies Relating To Attachment Of Property Under Benami Prohibition Act: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Mr. P. Eswaramoorthy v The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition)

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 188 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that NCLT is not the proper Fora to determine the controversies revolving around the Attachment of Property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (“PBPT Act”). The Section 60(5) of IBC does not confer jurisdiction upon NCLT to determine any questions relating to the Corporate Debtor and no remedy can be sought under the same with regards to the PBPT Act. Further, Moratorium imposed under Section 14 of IBC does not affect a Provisional Attachment Order issued under the PBPT Act.

Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant Has No Locus Standi To Challenge The Approved Resolution Plan: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M.K. Rajagopalan v S. Rajendran & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 58 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) has held that an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has no locus standi to assail a Resolution Plan or its implementation since it is not a stakeholder as per Section 31(1) of IBC.

Financial Creditor Who Does Not Attend Proceedings, Cannot Claim That Cirp Has Been Wrongly Conducted: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Consolidated Finvest & Holdings Ltd. v Subhash Kumar Kundra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 312 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that a Financial Creditor who does not attend the CIRP proceeding, cannot be heard in saying that CIRP has wrongly been conducted. The Bench has also upheld the imposition of Rs. 10 Lakhs cost by the Adjudicating Authority on the Financial Creditor for filing frivolous application.

GOOGLE V CCI: NCLAT Delhi Upholds Imposition Of Rs. 1337.76 Crores Penalty On Google, For Abuse Of Dominant Position In Android Market

Case Title: Google LLC & Anr. v Competition Commission of India

Case No.: Competition Appeal (AT) (ND) No.01 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has dismissed Google’s appeal against CCI order dated 20.10.2022, wherein the Competition Commission of India had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1337.76 Crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in denial of market access for competing search apps. The Bench observed that the CCI’s investigation into Google's conduct was not violative of principles of natural justice. Certain directions by the CCI have been set aside by the NCLAT.

“IBC Does Not Contemplate Multiplicity Of Applications Against The Same Personal Guarantor”: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Union Bank of India v Mr. P.K. Balasubramanian

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 293 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that when the Insolvency Resolution Process commences against a Personal Guarantor, the claims of all Creditors are taken care of. The IBC does not contemplate multiplicity of applications against the same Personal Guarantor.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Subsequent Reduction Of Claim By The IRP, Based On An Arbitral Award

Case Title: Intec Capital Ltd. v Uday Kumar Bhaskar Bhat

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.361 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 the decision of the IRP whereby the claim of financial creditor was reduced after having been once admitted, based on an arbitral award which came into knowledge of IRP subsequently. The Bench held that the IRP is empowered to change the claim amount in the event any additional material comes into picture.

Financial Creditor Who Does Not Attend Proceedings, Cannot Claim That Cirp Has Been Wrongly Conducted: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Consolidated Finvest & Holdings Ltd. v Subhash Kumar Kundra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 312 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a Financial Creditor who does not attend the CIRP proceeding, cannot be heard in saying that CIRP has wrongly been conducted. The Bench has also upheld the imposition of Rs. 10 Lakhs cost by the Adjudicating Authority on the Financial Creditor for filing frivolous application.

GOOGLE V CCI: NCLAT Delhi Upholds Imposition Of Rs. 1337.76 Crores Penalty On Google, For Abuse Of Dominant Position In Android Market

Case Title: Google LLC & Anr. v Competition Commission of India

Case No.: Competition Appeal (AT) (ND) No.01 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has dismissed Google’s appeal against CCI order dated 20.10.2022, wherein the Competition Commission of India had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1337.76 Crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in denial of market access for competing search apps.

NCLAT Chennai To Conduct Physical Hearings On Tuesday, Wednesday And Thursday

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, has issued a circular dated 01.04.2023, intimating that cases before NCLAT Chennai will be taken up through only Physical Mode on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Further, matters would be heard in Virtual Mode every Monday and Friday. In case if any Member of NCLAT Chennai is on leave on a particular day, then the cases will be heard through Virtual Mode on that particular day. The aforesaid arrangement shall continue until further orders by the Chairperson or Judicial Member of NCLAT.

Claim For Pre-CIRP Dues Not Been Filed, Electricity Department Not Entitled To Recover Such Dues Or To Disconnect Electricity: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Swastik Aqua Ltd. & Anr. v Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 847 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that if the Electricity Department does not file any claim for its pre-CIRP electricity dues, then it is neither entitled to recover the pre-CIRP electricity dues, nor entitled to disconnect the connection of Corporate Debtor over such non-payment.

Allocation Of Meagre Amount Cant Be A Ground To Question The Resolution Plan: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Pani Logistics v Vikas G. Jain & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 205 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 mere allocation of meagre amount cannot be a ground to question the resolution plan. The allocation in the resolution plan to the creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value. The NCLAT Bench has upheld the NCLT’s order, wherein it was held that the Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount when Financial Creditors have not been paid in full in the Resolution Plan.

No Scope For Condonation Of Delay Beyond 15 Days, Much Less 45 Days: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Diwakar Sharma v Anand Sonbhadra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1446 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that there is no scope for condonation of delay beyond the period of 15 days much less 45 days, as there is no window available for NCLAT to exercise its jurisdiction for condonation of delay.

Threshold Limit Of Rs. 1 Crore Applicable From The Date Of Filing And Not From Date Of Registration Of Petition: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Royal Manpower Services v Faridabad Autocomp System Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 370 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member), has held the revised minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore is applicable from the date of filing of petition and not from the date of registration. The Bench revived a petition under Section 9 of IBC having a default lesser than Rs. 1 Crore, which was filed in 2019 but got registered in 2021. It has been observed that the subsequent registration of the petition will not change the date of filing.

S. 66 Of IBC: Fraud Includes A Debt Which Debtor Has No Intention To Repay: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Shri Baiju Trading and Investment Private Limited v Mr. Arihant Nenawati & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 699 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held under that ‘fraud’ for the purpose of Section 66 of IBC would consist of debts which the Debtor has no intention to repay or does not expect to be able to pay. Further, fraud may also happen by way of false representation, without there being any intention to pay back. The expression ‘any persons’ in Section 66 of IBC includes a knowing party to the carrying out of fraudulent transactions.

Creditor Who Don’t Submit Claim Or Raises Issues In CIRP, Has No Right To Challenge Resolution Plan: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. v Jagdish Kumar & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1113 of 2020

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that a creditor who neither submits its claim before the IRP/Resolution Professional, nor raises any issue during the entire CIRP period, cannot be allowed to challenge resolution plan which has already been implemented.

AA Not Required To Assess The Correct Amount Of Debt At Admission Stage: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Manmohan Gupta v MDS Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.202 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 the Adjudicating Authority is not required to express any opinion on the correctness of debt amount at the admission stage of petition. Rather, it is the Resolution Professional who would subsequently assess the correct debt amount at the time of collation of the claims.

Subsequently Modified OTS Proposal Would Further Refresh The Limitation Period: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. State Bank of India v M/s. Hackbridge Hewittic and Easun Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 05 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that submission of a One Time Settlement (“OTS”) proposal is acknowledgement of debt in terms of Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963. Further, any fresh or subsequent/modified OTS proposal would further extend the limitation period by three years.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Rejection Of ‘Discovery & Inspection’ Application Filed By Corporate Debtor In Section 9 Petition

Case Title: Baba Baidnath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. v Textile Solutions

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 426 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has upheld the rejection of an application for discovery and inspection of documents field by the Corporate Debtor in a petition under Section 9 of IBC. The Bench held that the worth of document filed by the Operational Creditor is to be considered at the time of considering the Section 9 petition. Further, the embargo to file relevant documents in support of its case is on the Operational Creditor alone.

NCLAT Delhi Admits YEIDA’s Appeal Against Jaypee Infratech Resolution Plan On Additional Compensation To Farmers

Case Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v Monitoring Committee of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 493 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has admitted the appeal filed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (“YEIDA”) against the approved resolution plan of M/s. Suraksha Realty Ltd. and M/s. Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for Jaypee Infratech Ltd. YEIDA has challenged the approved Resolution Plan on limited ground of allocation of Rs. 10 Lakhs as against a claim for Rs. 1,689.017 Crores for paying additional compensation to the farmers.

Allegation That IRP/RP Did Not Conduct CIRP As Per Law, Not A Ground To Challenge Resolution Plan: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya v Pinakin Shah

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 456 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 the order approving the Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with on a mere allegation that the IRP or the Resolution Professional has not conducted the CIRP in accordance with law.

Not Mandatory To File Hard Copies; NCLAT Dispenses The Requirement Of Physical Filing In Addition To E-Filing

File No.: 10/37/2018-NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has issued a circular dated 15.05.2023, directing that the physical filing of hard copies alongwith appeals, interlocutory applications, reply, rejoinders etc., which have been electronically filed, is not mandatory now.

The NCLAT had rolled out its e-filing portal available at: (https://efiling.nclat.gov.in), for electronic filing of Appeals/Interlocutory Applications/Reply/Rejoinder etc. w.e.f. 04.01.2021. However, it was mandatory to file a hard copy of the concerned appeal/application/reply/rejoinder etc. after the e-filing gets concluded. Through the circular dated 15.05.2023, the NCLAT has modified its earlier filing procedure and has dispensed with the ‘mandatory’ requirement of filing hard copies after e-filing.

Disposed Petition On Consent Terms Can Be Revived On Breach Of Terms, Irrespective Of Liberty Granted Or Not: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited v Nirmal Lifestyle Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 117 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 when a petition is withdrawn by placing on record the consent/settlement terms, then the petition is liable to be revived if consent terms provide for its revival in the event of default. The Bench has further held that it is inconsequential whether or not the NCLT has granted any liberty for revival, the petition is liable to be revived if consent terms placed on record contains a clause for revival.

Litigant Has No Right To Ask NCLT Member To Recuse Himself From Hearing: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Ishrat Ali v The Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that a litigant has no right under Rule 62 of NCLT Rules, 2016 to seek recusal of a NCLT Member from hearing a case.

“The litigant has no right to ask the member to recuse himself. The present is a case where request was made by the Appellant to the Member to recuse from hearing the proceeding. Rule 62 cannot be put to such interpretation and giving any such right to litigant shall lead to disastrous and unwelcome results”, the Bench ruled.

Go Airlines | NCLAT Upholds Initiation Of Insolvency Proceedings, Aircrafts To Remain In Possession Of Go Airlines

Case Title: SMBC Aviation Capital Ltd. Vs. Interim Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Ltd.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 593 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 upheld the NCLT order whereby Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) was initiated against Go Airlines (India) Limited.

The Bench has rejected an appeal filed by the Lessors challenging the NCLT’s direction to keep the leased aircrafts intact in the possession of Go Airlines. Since the Lessors had challenged the imposition of moratorium on leased aircrafts (third party assets) when the lease agreement stood terminated prior to CIRP, the NCLAT has granted liberty to IRP and the Lessors to file application(s) before the NCLT with respect to their claims relating to the leased aircrafts.

Not Mandatory To Issue Notice To The Creditors At Pre-Admission Stage Of Section 10 Application: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: SMBC Aviation Capital Ltd. Vs. Interim Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Ltd.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 593 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 IBC does not contain any provision which requires that a notice be served upon the creditors of the Corporate Applicant at pre-admission stage of Section 10 application.

“….since the statutory Scheme does not contain any obligation of issuing notice to the creditors by the Corporate Applicant, any objector appearing at the time of hearing has to be heard and the objection may be noted by the Adjudicating Authority and thereafter the appropriate decision can be taken. We, thus, conclude that the mere fact that no notice was issued to the creditors or any opportunity was given to the objectors before proceeding to hear, the Corporate Applicant, cannot be held to vitiate any procedure or violating the principles of natural justice, more so when objectors were heard by the Adjudicating Authority.”

Delay In Filing Of Appeal Under Section 42 Of IBC Is Condonable Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Canara Bank v Commercial Tax Department Circle 09, Indore, Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 655 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 delay in filing the Appeal under Section 42 of IBC is condonable in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Home Buyers Have No Right To File Intervention Application Prior To Admission Of Section 7 Petition: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Vikash Kumar Mishra & Ors. v Orbis Trusteeship Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 246 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 an intervention application filed by the homebuyers in petition under Section 7 of IBC is not maintainable before such petition gets admitted. The right to file such application would accrue after admission of the Section 7 petition. The homebuyers of ‘Sikka Kaamna Greens’ project had filed an intervention application supporting the case of the Corporate Debtor (Builder) that the petition under Section 7 of IBC must be rejected. Both NCLT and NCLAT rejected the application on grounds of maintainability.

NCLAT Reprimands RP For Seeking Police Help For Security Of Assets Of Corporate Debtor Instead Of Private Security

Case Title: RP Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. v Supdt. of Police Anandpura, Vadodra Gujarat & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 682 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held for security of private property of the Corporate Debtor, the Resolution Professional cannot seek deployment of police at site. Instead, the Resolution Professional is required to hire security personnel for the said purpose and make payment to them.

“We are of the view that Resolution Professional should know that what prayers may be granted by the Adjudicating Authority and prayers which were made by the Resolution Professional requesting the Adjudicating Authority to direct deployment of police/gunmen at the site was wholly uncalled for. For security of private property, the RP has to hire security personnel for which payment has to be made for them. Prayers in the Applications were wholly inappropriate and has rightly been not considered.”

Third Party Cannot Obtain Copy Of Resolution Plan Pending Approval By AA: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Rupinder Singh Gill v Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 729 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has held that a party who is not a Claimant, Creditor or a participant in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, is not entitled to be given a copy of the Resolution Plan which is pending approval or rejection before the Adjudicating Authority. The IBC also does not contain any such provision.

Home Buyers Have No Right To File Intervention Application Prior To Admission Of Section 7 Petition: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Vikash Kumar Mishra & Ors. v Orbis Trusteeship Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 246 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 an intervention application filed by the homebuyers in petition under Section 7 of IBC is not maintainable before such petition gets admitted. The right to file such application would accrue after admission of the Section 7 petition. The homebuyers of ‘Sikka Kaamna Greens’ project had filed an intervention application supporting the case of the Corporate Debtor (Builder) that the petition under Section 7 of IBC must be rejected. Both NCLT and NCLAT rejected the application on grounds of maintainability.

Delay In Filing Of Appeal Under Section 42 Of IBC Is Condonable Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Canara Bank v Commercial Tax Department Circle 09, Indore, Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 655 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 delay in filing the Appeal under Section 42 of IBC is condonable in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

IBC: NCLAT Five Member Bench Lays Down Grounds For Recall Of Judgment

Case Title: Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & Ors.

Case No.: CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member), Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that NCLAT has the power to recall its judgment by invoking inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. However, the power of recall does not include re-hearing of a case to find out any apparent error in the judgment.

“Power of recall of a judgment can be exercised by this Tribunal when any procedural error is committed in delivering the earlier judgment; for example; necessary party has not been served or necessary party was not before the Tribunal when judgment was delivered adverse to a party. There may be other grounds for recall of a judgment. Well known ground on which a judgment can always be recalled by a Court is ground of fraud played on the Court in obtaining judgment from the Court”, the Bench held.

IBC: NCLAT Has No Power To Review Its Judgment, Rules NCLAT Five Member Bench

Case Title: Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & Ors.

Case No.: CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member), Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the power of review is not conferred upon the NCLAT. However, the NCLAT has the power to recall its judgment by invoking inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

“The power to review is not conferred upon this Tribunal but power to recall its judgment is inherent in this Tribunal since inherent power of the Tribunal are preserved, powers which are inherent in the Tribunal as has been declared by Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016”, the Bench ruled.

NCLAT Reprimands RP For Seeking Police Help For Security Of Assets Of Corporate Debtor Instead Of Private Security

Case Title: RP Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. v Supdt. of Police Anandpura, Vadodra Gujarat & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 682 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held for security of private property of the Corporate Debtor, the Resolution Professional cannot seek deployment of police at site. Instead, the Resolution Professional is required to hire security personnel for the said purpose and make payment to them.

The Bench has expressed its displeasure on the prayer made by the Resolution Professional and has observed that, “We are of the view that Resolution Professional should know that what prayers may be granted by the Adjudicating Authority and prayers which were made by the Resolution Professional requesting the Adjudicating Authority to direct deployment of police/gunmen at the site was wholly uncalled for.

Since CoC Is Re-Constituted Post Approval Of Plan, It Must Be Again Examined By The New CoC: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Dauphin Cables Pvt. Ltd. v Praveen Bansal Resolution Professional & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 634-636 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that when the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is re-constituted post approval of a resolution plan, due to recategorization of a creditor, then the approved resolution plan must be placed again before the reconstituted CoC for its consideration.

IBC | Sec. 9 Petition For Implementation Of Arbitral Award Is Not Maintainable: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. KK Ropeways Limited v M/s. Billion Smiles Hospitality

Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 246 / 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Chairperson) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has upheld that a petition filed under Section 9 of IBC for implementation of an Arbitral Award is not maintainable and not in tune with the objective of IBC. The Bench has further held that arbitration and IBC proceedings cannot go on together.

Avoidance Application(S) Can Continue Post Completion Of CIRP: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Kapil Wadhawan v Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 437 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 avoidance application(s) can continue even after completion of CIRP.

The Bench placed reliance on Section 26 of IBC to interpret that proceedings of avoidance application are a different stream and do not affect the CIRP. Similarly, Section 36(3)(f) of IBC indicates that post completion of CIRP, the statute envisages recoveries through proceedings for avoidance transactions. Further, Regulation 38(2)(d) of CIRP Regulations shows the legislative intent that Resolution Plan must provide for the manner in which avoidance transactions would be pursued after approval of Plan.

Resolution Professional Empowered To Keep Claims In Abeyance: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sravanam

Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 12 / 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that it is within the power of the Resolution Professional to keep the claim(s) submitted by the creditors in abeyance, for plurality of reasons. The Bench has permitted the Resolution Professional to keep a claim in abeyance, in respect of which arbitration proceedings were ongoing and the Corporate Debtor’s counter claim was pending determination before the Arbitral Tribunal.

SRA Can Pursue Avoidance Application Post Completion Of CIRP, If Plan Contains A Clause To That Effect: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Kapil Wadhawan v Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 437 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 avoidance application(s) can be pursued by the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”) post completion of CIRP, if the approved Resolution Plan contains a specific clause for pursuing such applications by the SRA.

Further, when a Resolution Plan specifically empowers the SRA to pursue the avoidance applications, then said provisions of the Plan shall bind everyone including the erstwhile Administrator/Resolution Professional.

NCLT

NCLT Kochi Initiates Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantor Of Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd.

Case Title: Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. v Dr. Bharath Chandran

Case No.: CP (IBC)/24/KOB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench, comprising of Shri. P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri. Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has initiated Insolvency Resolution Process against Dr. Bharath Chandran, the personal guarantor and Promoter of M/s. Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd. The NCLT Bench observed that the Guarantor admitted the Deed of Guarantee, agreed to the terms therein unconditionally and also gave consent to the Creditor and the Borrower to vary the terms of the contract and securities.

NCLT Delhi Rejects Scheme Of Amalgamation For Being Non Compliant Of Section 72A(2) Of Income Tax Act

Case Title: Minda TG Rubber Pvt. Ltd. v Toyoda Gosei Minda India Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: Company Petition (CAA) No. 111 (ND)/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has rejected the Scheme of Amalgamation proposed by Minda TG Rubber Pvt. Ltd. for being non compliant of Section 72A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Bench observed that the Scheme of Amalgamation was not compliant of Section 72A(2), as there was no undertaking that the Transferee Company shall not dispose of all the assets; shall hold at least three-fourths of the book value of fixed assets of the Transferor Company for at least 5 years; and it shall continue business of the Transferor Company for the next five years. The Bench declined to allow the carry forward and set off of loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Transferor Company in the Transferee Company, which is a condition stipulated in the Scheme.

NCLT Delhi Dismisses Insolvency Plea Against Hindustan Times; “Not A Dispute Redressal Forum”

Case Title: M/s JHS Svendgaard Ltd. v M/s HT Media Ltd.

Case No.: (IB) 400 ND/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has declined to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Hindustan Times (HT Media Ltd.). The Bench further held that NCLT is not a dispute redressal forum. HT Media Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) is a mass media company engaged in the business of print, electronic and digital media. HT media’s flagship newspaper is Hindustan Times.

NCLT Mumbai Approves Adani Goodhome’s Resolution Plan For Radius Estates & Developers

Case Title: Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. v Radius Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB) No: 1390 of 2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Adani Goodhomes Pvt. Ltd. for Radius Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Radius Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) entered into a joint venture as co-developer with the MIG (Bandra) Realtors and Builders Pvt. Ltd., for redevelopment of a land situated at Bandra (East) Mumbai (“Project”). The Project included construction of residential flats/units for: (i) rehabilitation of the members of the Middle-Income Group Co-operative Housing Society; and (ii) as part of the free-sale component.

NCLT Delhi Admits Unibera Developers Into Insolvency

Case Title: Mahi Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Unibera Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: (IB)-505(ND)2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri L. N. Gupta (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Unibera Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jalan has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Unibera Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) is engaged in the development of residential, commercial and government real estate projects. The Corporate Debtor’s projects are located in NOIDA, Greater NOIDA, Ghaziabad and Bihar.

NCLT Mumbai Approves Promoter’s Resolution Plan For Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: CP (IB) No.4549/MB-IV/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has approved the resolution plan submitted by the Promoter of the Corporate Debtor (Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd.). The Corporate Debtor is engaged in the business of iron sponge manufacturing in Goa.

NCLT Hyderabad Grants A Series Of Concessions/Waivers To The Successful Bidder

Case Title: State Bank of India v K.R.R Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB) No.430/7/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Sri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has granted several waivers/concessions to the Successful Bidder including waiver from penalties imposed by Registrar of Companies and other authorities. Further, the Bench has granted the Successful Bidder the liberty to approach the concerned authority for seeking offset of any loses as per Income Tax Act against future profits; and clearance from the secured financial creditors and filing of satisfaction of charge by them. The new management shall also not be liable for any payment arising out of the contingent liabilities on account of bank guarantees.

NCLT Prescribes Dress Code For Members, Lawyers, RP, Authorized Representative & Parties In Person

File No.: 25/02/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has issued an order dated 27.01.2023 specifying the following dress code:

· President and Members: Long trousers (White/Black, Black striped or Grey), National Dress with a shirt and collar band alongwith a black coat/buttoned up black coat. The Female President or Member are directed to wear a sober coloured saree, national dress and collar band with a black coat/buttoned up black coat.

• Legal Practioners: the dress code prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Authroized Representative (Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary, Cost Accountant): professional dress, if any prescribed under their respective code of conduct. In case no dress code is prescribed, a male member shall wear sober coloured dress/national dress with a buttoned up coat, or a coat with tie. A female member shall wear a sober coloured saree or formal national dress. A suit or buttoned up coat is optional.
• Resolution Professional/Interim Resolution Professional: A male member shall wear sober coloured dress/national dress, a suit or buttoned up coat and tie. A female member shall wear a sober coloured saree or formal national dress. A suit or buttoned up coat is optional.
• Parties in person: national dress in a sober colour.

TDS Payments Do Not Amount To An Acknowledgement Of Debt: NCLT

Case Title: Kalpesh Jaysukh Shah versus M/s Arch Pharmalabs Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 3460/MB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice P.N. Deshmukh (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has held that TDS (tax deducted at source) payments do not amount to an acknowledgment of debt. Reliance was placed on the NCLAT judgment in P.M. Cold Store Pvt. Ltd. v. Goouksheer Farm Fresh Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., in which it was held that the fact that the corporate debtor has paid TDS on interest payable cannot be considered as an acknowledgment in writing of the liability by the corporate debtor, and therefore, such a TDS payment will not have any effect as an acknowledgment of the debt.

NCLT Hyderabad Invokes Rule 153; Permits Filing Of Rejoinder Post Closure Of Opportunity

Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors. v India Power Corporation Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) NO. 205/7/HDB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member), invoked its powers under Rule 153 of the NCLT Rules and permitted the Financial Creditor to file its Rejoinder, even after the opportunity to do so stood closed by an earlier order of NCLT. The Bench further held that an application to condone the delay and to receive the Rejoinder which was filed post closure of opportunity, is not in the nature of a Review Application. The Bench treated such application as an application for condonation of delay.

No Simultaneous CIRP Proceedings Against Same Corporate Debtor: NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Vrundavan Residency Pvt. Ltd. v Mars Remedies Pvt Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB) 300/NCLT/AHM/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Deepti Mukesh (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), has held that there cannot be simultaneous CIRP proceedings against the same Corporate Debtor. The Bench declined to initiate CIRP against a Corporate Debtor which was already admitted into CIRP, but the Supreme Court had stayed the CIRP proceedings during pendency of an appeal.

NCLT Mumbai Excludes Moratorium Period In Calculation Of Limitation

Case Title: Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. v Manpreet Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB) No.700/MB-IV/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has held that if an entity which itself was admitted into CIRP and has undergone moratorium, files an application under IBC, then the period of moratorium would be excluded while computing limitation of such application. The Bench has admitted an application under Section 7 of IBC filed by DHFL (taken over by Piramal) against a Corporate Debtor and has excluded the moratorium period undergone by DHFL while computing limitation of the application.

Resolution Applicant Wilfully Fails To Implement Plan, NCLT Mumbai Orders Liquidation Without Monitoring Committee’s Mandate

Case Title: BMW Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v S.K. Wheels Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: C.P.(I.B.) No. 4301 of 2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Ms. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member), has ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as the Resolution Applicant willfully failed to implement the resolution plan. The order of liquidation has been made without the mandate of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee (IMC) and to secure the asset value of the Corporate Debtor. Further, action has been initiated under Section 74 of IBC to penalize the Resolution Applicant for wilful non-implementation of the plan.

NCLT Mumbai Initiates Insolvency Proceedings Against Siti Networks Ltd.

Case Title: Indusind Bank Ltd. v Siti Networks Ltd.

Case No.: C.P. No. 690/IBC/MB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Ms. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Rohit Mehra has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. Siti Networks Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) is engaged in the business of multi-system operator and provides television services across India. Corporate Debtor is a part of the Essel Zee Group promoted by Dr. Subhash Chandra and was a 100% subsidiary of erstwhile Zee Telefilms Ltd. (now Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.).

NCLT Mumbai Initiates Insolvency Proceedings Against Reliance Broadcast Network Limited

Case Title: IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited V. Reliance Broadcast Network Limited

Case No.: C.P. 310 OF 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’), Mumbai bench comprising of Mr. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Ms. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Reliance Broadcast Network Limited [“Corporate Debtor”]. Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra has been appointed as the interim Resolution Professional.

Excessive Amount Mistakenly Paid Can’t Be Operational Debt, It’s Quasi Contract: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. Sandvik Mining & Construction Tools AB v M/s TA Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP(IB) No. 278/09/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has held that if an Operational Creditor mistakenly pays excess sum to the Corporate Debtor, then the excess amount would not be categorized as an operational debt, if the claim is entirely based on a Quasi Contract and not on concerned purchase orders and commercial invoices in respect to supply of goods and services.

NCLT Mumbai Allows Withdrawal Of CIRP Against Meta Arch Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Ardex Endura (India) Private Limited v Meta Arch Private Limited

Case No.: CP(IB)/3546/(MB)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has permitted withdrawal of CIRP against Meta Arch Private Limited. Meta Arch Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) is engaged in real estate development and has projects across Kenya, Pune, Mumbai, Dubai et al.

No Attachment Of Property Under PMLA Once Liquidation Commences: NCLT Jaipur

Case Title: M/s Packwell (India) Ltd. v M/s Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd

Case No.: CP No. (IB)- 601/ND/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Jaipur Bench, comprising of Shri Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial Member) and Shri Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (Technical Member), has held that PMLA would cease to have the power to attach the property of the Corporate Debtor, when the order of the Liquidation has already been passed.

NCLT Delhi Approves Resolution Plan For Boulevard Projects Private Limited

Case Title: SGM Webtech Private Limited V. Boulevard Projects Private Limited

Case No: CP (IB) No.967(PB)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Shri Avinash K. Srivastava (Technical Member) has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Max Estates Limited for Boulevard Projects Private Limited which was developing a high-end real estate project Delhi One. The Resolution Plan is valued at ₹1118,38,93,145/-.

NCLT Delhi Approves Resolution Plan Of Suraksha Realty & Lakshdeep Investments & Finance For Jaypee Infratech LTD.

Case Title: IDBI Bank Limited v Jaypee Infratech Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-77(ALD)/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Special Bench (New Delhi), comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Consortium of M/s. Suraksha Realty Ltd. and M/s. Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Jaypee Infratech Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) is an infrastructure development company which is engaged in the development and maintenance of the Yamuna Expressway, on a build-transfer-operate basis, as well as development of five integrated townships along the Expressway.

Debt Arising Out Of Different Work Orders Can Be Clubbed To Meet Minimum Threshold Of Rs. 1 Crore: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: A J Buildcon Private Limited v Patel Engineering Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.627/MB-IV/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has reiterated that debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore under IBC. The Bench has initiated CIRP against Patel Engineering Ltd. and appointed Ms. Neeraja Kartik as the Interim Resolution Professional.

No Bar On Sale Of Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern After First Auction, Permission Of AA not required: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Mr. Surinder Manchanda v Nolsar International Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-1031(ND)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has held that there is no bar on the sale of Corporate Debtor as a going concern even after the first auction has taken place and the Liquidator is not obliged to seek permission of Adjudicating Authority for conducting such sale.

When Financial Creditors Have Not Been Paid In Full, Operational Creditors Cannot Claim A Higher Amount: NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Noble Resource International Pvt. Ltd. v Sona Alloys Pvt. Ltd.,

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 586 of 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Deepti Mukesh (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), has held that when Financial Creditors have not been paid in full in the Resolution Plan, the Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount under the same. The Bench observed that a conjoint reading of Section 30 and Section 53 of IBC shows that the Financial Creditors are placed at a higher priority than Operational Creditors. The Secured Financial Creditors are covered by Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the Unsecured Financial Creditors are covered by Section 53(1)(d). The Operational Creditors are to be considered thereafter having lower priority and are covered by Section 53(1)(f).

Petition U/S 9 IBC Can Only Be Filed After Expiry Of 10 Day Period Under Section 8(2) IBC: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Aypols Polymers Private Limited Vs Suvarna Fibrotech Pvt Ltd

Case No.: CP (IB) No.635/MB-IV/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) , Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that Petition under Section 9 of IBC can only be filed after expiry of the 10 days period mentioned under Section 8 (2) of IBC. The Tribunal observed that the proof of service of Demand Notice was not annexed to the petition and it was unclear how was the Demand Notice served. The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor has 10 days to respond to the Demand Notice under Section 8(2) of IBC. A petition under Section 9 of IBC can only be filed after expiry of 10 days provided under Section 8(2). Since the petition was filed on the very next day on which the Demand Notice was sent, the petition was not in accordance with Section 9(1) of IBC.

Insufficiency Of Stamp On Loan Documents Not Relevant For Admissibility Of Section 7 Petition: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs M/s Hybro Foods Private Limited

Case No.: C.P.(IB) No. 295 of 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has reiterated that the insufficiency in the stamping of the loan documents is not a relevant ground for dismissing a petition under Section 7 of IBC. The thing which is to be verified is that whether the debt is bona fide disputed and whether the said defence is a substantial one.

Claims Not Part Of The Resolution Plan Shall Extinguish Only After Resolution Plan Approval: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri. Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has reiterated that all claims not forming part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished only after the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority.

Dissenting Secured Creditor Can't Be Treated Higher Than Other Creditors U/S 53 Just Because They Enjoy Security Interest: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: Trimurti Associates Private Limited Vs BKM Industries Limited

Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 2078/KB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal(“NCLT”), Kolkata Bench, comprising of Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri. Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has reiterated that just because a creditor enjoys security interest, it cannot be treated higher than other creditors who have financed the Corporate Debtor. The other creditors don’t not enjoy the protection of a security interest and thus run the risk of not getting paid their dues from realization of security. If such creditors are treated differently, then all secured creditors would dissent in the CoC. This will not lead to maximization of value of the Corporate Debtor and will defeat the very purpose of resolution under IBC.

Dispute In The Quantum Of Debt Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Insolvency Petition: NCLT Delhi Reiterates

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri P.S.N. Prasad (Judicial member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has reiterated that dispute over quantum of debt cannot be a ground for rejection of insolvency petition. The tribunal admitted the petition after observing that the petition very well qualifies the 1 Crore threshold limit for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

Residuary Jurisdiction Of NCLT U/S 60(5)(c) of IBC, Can't Be Used To Interpret Terms Of An Agreement Relating To A Third-Party Contract: NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd vs JBF Petrochemicals Ltd.

Case No. CP (IB) No. 232/NCLT/AHM/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B. Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), has held that NCLT has limited residuary jurisdiction under section 60(5)(c) of IBC and that it cannot interpret the terms of an agreement relating to a third-party contract.

NCLT Shall Not Act As A Recovery Forum: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Member Technical) has rejected the Application under Section 9 of IBC filed against Indian Oil Corporation Limited (‘IOCL’) by Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited (‘SATEC’) on the ground that the tribunal cannot go into adjudication of dispute, whatsoever it may be, under IBC. NCLT made it clear that the Adjudicating Authority defined under IBC would not be an Adjudicator of disputed claims.

Section 9 Petition Not Maintainable If Principal Amount Repaid During Pendency Of Petition: NCLT Bengaluru Reiterates

Case: Ramesh Kumar Garg vs M/s Buildmet Pvt Ltd

Case No.: CP (IB) No.109/BB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Justice (Retd) T. Krishnavalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has reiterated that a Section 9 petition is not maintainable if the principal amount has been repaid during the pendency of the petition and only the interest component remains unpaid. The Tribunal relied on the NCLAT judgement of Rohit Motawat v. Madhu Sharma”, Comp. App.(AT) (Ins) No. 1152 of 2022 which ruled that a section 9 application regarding only the interest component is not maintainable as “the spirit of the legislation of the Code is for ‘resolution of debt’ and not for recovery”.

Length Of Delay Immaterial, Reason Stated For Condonation Matter: NCLT Hyderabad Reiterates

Case Title: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs Viceroy Hotels Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 219/7/HDB/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, comprising Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has held that the length of delay is immaterial, but the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay matter.

Corporate Debtor being the Principal Employer covered under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, failed to make contributions under the Act. Due to this, the Applicant filed its claim before the Resolution Professional on 24.08.2022, which was rejected on the ground that the process of submission of the claims stood closed in 2018. The Tribunal observed that publications invited claims on or before 30.03.2018 and were in circulation in the area in which the office of the Applicant is situated. It was further held that the focus of the application was on the entitlement of the claim rather than on the reason for not making the claim on time. Hence no reason, much less a sufficient one has even been pleaded before the Tribunal for condonation of delay.

Corporate Debtor Not Being A Going Concern, Termination Of Essential Raw Material Supply Doesn’t Erode Value Of Assets: NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Sundaresh Bhat v Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited

Case No.: CP(IB) No. 232 of 2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B. Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), has held that Section 14 of IBC seeks to preserve the ‘going concern’ status ‘if’ the Corporate Debtor is a running unit. In case the Corporate Debtor is not a going concern, it cannot be contended that termination of contract of essential raw material resulted in erosion of asset value. Further, the residuary jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(C) of the IBC is limited and cannot be invoked to interpret terms of third-party contract.

NCLT Ahmedabad Approves GAIL India’s Resolution Plan For JBF Petrochemicals

Case Title: IDBI Bank Limited vs JBF Petrochemicals Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 232/AHM2018

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has approved a 2079 crore resolution plan of GAIL (India) Limited (“GAIL”) for JBF Petrochemicals under section 31 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). This is the second instance of a state-owned company acquiring a private sector bankrupt company, with the first being Indian Oil Corporation acquiring Mercator under IBC.

Discharge Of Liability Of The Principal Borrower Or Guarantor Does Not Automatically Discharge The Other In A Contract Of Guarantee: NCLT Chandigarh

Case Title: Jammu Kashmir Bank Limited vs Ace Engineering (India) Pvt Ltd

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 54/Chd/J&K/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, comprising of Shri Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Shri Subrata Kumar Dash (Technical Member), has held that even if, either the principal borrower or guarantor has been discharged then the other party would not stand discharged automatically till the liability is met out or discharged.

Section 9 Application Must Stand The Test Laid Down By SC In M/s S.S. Engineers Vs HPCL: NCLT Jaipur

Case Title: Narayan Organics Private Limited Vs Prayag Polytech Private Limited

Case No. CP No. (IB)- 232/9/JPR/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, comprising Shri Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial Member) and Shri Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (Technical Member), has held that an application under Section 9 of IBC must stand the test laid down by the Supreme Court in M/S S.S. Engineers Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4583 OF 2022, whereby it was held that Operational Creditors can only trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) ‘when there is an undisputed debt and a default in payment thereof’.

NCLT Ahmedabad Order Liquidation Of Tradeohub B2B Limited Under Section 33 Of IBC

Case Title: Skystep Trading Ltd vs Tradeohub B2B Limited

Case No.: C.P. (I.B.) No.409/NCLT/AHM/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member) has ordered the liquidation of Tradeohub B2B Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) under Section 33(1) of IBC.

Tradeohub B2B Limited is a manufacturing company which manufactured food & agriculture, chemicals, pharma, polymers & additives and other industrial raw materials. There was no Resolution Applicant for the Corporate Debtor and the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) decided to liquidate the Corporate Debtor with 69.22% voting share as the Corporate Debtor just had 1 immovable property with a liquidation value of 50.12 lakhs.

NCLT Ahmedabad Orders Closure Of Liquidation Of M/s Mehta & Associates Fire Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Tyco Fire & Security India Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Mehta & Associates Fire Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: C.P. (I.B.) No. /243/NCLT/AHM/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B. Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has ordered for closure of liquidation of M/s Mehta & Associates Fire Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’) under Regulation 44(1), 45(1), and 45(3)(a) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (‘Liquidation Regulations’).

The business was sold as a going concern and the Liquidator submitted that the company had obtained major orders and contracts. The business contracts were the major financial assets of the Corporate Debtor and without selling the business as a going concern, these assets of the Corporate Debtor would not have realized anything. Hence, the Liquidator was able to realize 48.3 lakhs by selling the business as a going concern. Thus, the Tribunal ordered for the closure of the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor under Regulation 45(3)(a) of the Liquidation Regulations.

NCLT Delhi Allows Voluntary Liquidation Of Mehra Bandhu Creations Private Limited

Case Title: Mehra Bandhu Creations Private Limited and Mukesh Chand Jain

Case No.: CP (IB) – 343(PB)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi bench, comprising of Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar (Judicial Member) and Shri Avinash Kumar Srivastava (Technical Member) has allowed the voluntary liquidation of Mehra Bandhu Creations Private Limited (‘Company’) and has ordered the Company to be dissolved under section 59(7) of IBC.

The Board of Directors approved the voluntary liquidation of the Company as it was not carrying any of its businesses and its directors were not interested to do any business in the future. A Special Resolution required under Section 59 of IBC read with the Voluntary Liquidation Regulations was passed in the Annual General Meeting and a Liquidator was appointed. There were no creditors of the company at the time of Liquidation.

NCLT Delhi Orders Dissolution Of M/S. Rajiv Sachdeva Cargo Agency Private Limited

Case Title: M/s. Rajiv Sachdeva Cargo Agency Private Limited (through Liquidator Mr. Naveen Narang)

Case No.: IB-307/ND/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member) has ordered the dissolution of M/s. Rajiv Sachdeva Cargo Agency Private Limited (‘Company’) under Section 59 of IBC read with Regulation 38(3) of the Liquidation Regulations.

AA Duty Bound to Ascertain Facts of Debt and Default, Cannot allow Respondents to take Advantage of Mistakes of Applicants: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Ezeego One Travel and Tours Limited vs Yatra Online Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 180/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to ascertain the facts relating to debt and default correctly and it cannot allow Respondents to take advantage of mistakes of fact or law on part of the Applicant. Further, the Tribunal is under an obligation to ascertain the existence of debt and default based on the Pleadings in the Application and the documents appended to it or filed in course of adjudication. The ascertainment of default also encompasses the ascertainment of its date.

Debts Arising From Different Work Orders Can Be Clubbed To Satisfy The Minimum Threshold Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: Wam India Private Limited Vs SN Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB) No.1152/MB-IV/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold under IBC.

Section 14 Of IBC Would Not Bar A Proceeding Under PMLA: NCLT Ahmedabad Reiterates

Case Title: Bank of India vs M/s Mayfair Leisures Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB) NO. 213/7/NCLT/AHM/2018,

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, comprising Dr. Madan B. Gosavi, (Judicial Member) and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member), has held that Section 14 of IBC would not bar a proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is a distinct and special statute having its own objective.

Replacement Of RP As Per Section 27 Is Complete When The Resolution Is Passed With 66% Voting Share: NCLT Allahabad

Case Title: M/s Mahajagdamba Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Quality Steels Product Limited

Case No. CP (IB) No.174/ALD/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, comprising of Shri Praveen Gupta (Judicial Member) and Shri Ashish Verma (Technical Member), has held that replacement of a Resolution Professional is complete as per the scheme of section 27 of IBC when the resolution is passed with the requisite 66% voting share.

The Tribunal observed that under Section 27 of IBC, an RP may be replaced at any time during the CIRP. The CoC can propose to replace the RP by a vote of 66% of voting share and subject to the written consent of the proposed RP. It was observed that if the requirements of section 27 are fulfilled, the CoC is required to forward the name of the proposed RP to the Tribunal for confirmation.

NCLT Kochi Sanctions Scheme Of Amalgamation For Midas Group Of Companies

Case Title: Sabari Rubber Private Limited and Ors.

Case No.: CA (CAA)/1(KOB)/2022.

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench, comprising of Shri P Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), while adjudicating a joint application filed under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 by thirteen Midas Group companies seeking sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation between them, has sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation, which shall be effective from 01.04.2023 onwards.

NCLT Chennai Approves The Resolution Plan Of Adani Port And Sez Ltd. For Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB)/85/(CHE)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Shri. Sameer Kakkar (Technical Member) has approved the resolution plan submitted by Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. for Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. is a Mr. Gautam Adani promoted company and a part of Adani Group. It owns 12 domestic ports in India, spread across the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha.

NCLT Hyderabad Approves Resolution Plan Of Jindal Saw Limited Of Merger With Sathavahana Ispat Limited

Case Title: Trimex Industries Vs. Sathavahana Ispat Limited

Case No: IA (IBC) No.1475 of 2022 in CP IB No.17/9/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badrinath (Member Judicial) and Shri. Charan Singh (Member Technical) has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Jindal Saw Limited (JSL), a flagship company of the P.R. Jindal Group. This decision allows for the merger of Sathavahana Ispat Limited (SIL), the Corporate Debtor, with JSL. Both JSL and SIL are listed on NSE and BSE. JSL, a leading manufacturer of submerged arc and spiral welded pipes for various industries, will benefit immensely from SIL's expertise in producing and selling pig iron and ductile iron pipes. The fusion of these two giants will amplify JSL's manufacturing capabilities, solidifying its position within the industry.

Section 30(4) Of IBC Directory In Nature, Does Not Compel COC To Distribute Payments Based On Value Of Security: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai vs. M/s. Galada Power And Telecommunications Ltd.

Case No.: CP(IB) No.384/7/HDB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Shri Dr. N. V. Rama Krishna Badarinath (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has held that Section 30(4) of IBC is directory in nature and does not compel the CoC to distribute payments to creditors based on the value of security held by them. The Bench has dismissed the application filed by a Financial Creditor claiming that resolution fund must be distributed as per voting share in CoC and not as per the kind of charge a financial creditor has on the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

The Bench has reiterated that a dissenting secured creditor cannot seek a higher amount to be paid to them on the basis of the value of their security interest by pleading dissatisfaction.

NCLT Urges Petitioners To Comply With Regulation 20(1a) Of Information Utility Regulations

File No.: 25/02/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has released a Circular dated 03.04.2023, requesting the Petitioners in Sections 7 and 9 of IBC proceedings to produce the record of Information Utility (NeSL certificate) for effective hearing of their case and comply with Regulation 20(1A) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Information Utilities) Regulation, 2016 (“Information Utility Regulation”). When a Petitioner files a petition under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, (“IBC”), the Regulation 20(1A) requires the Petitioners to produce the record of Information Utility (NeSL certificate) at the earliest for effective hearing of their case.

In Absence Of A Charge Being Registered For Corporate Guarantee, The Appellant Could Not Be Treated As A Secured Financial Creditor; NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Intec Capital Ltd. vs Arvind Gaudana

Case No.: CP(IB) 561 of 2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical) and Dr. Madan B. Gosavi (Judicial) dealt with the interpretation of a ‘secured’ financial creditor under the IBC. The tribunal held that the applicant in the present case, could not be considered as a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor as no charge had been created by him, on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website.

NCLT New Delhi Rejects Section 9 Application For Initiation Of CIRP Against G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited

Case Title: Connecting People of India vs G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited.

Case No.: COMPANY PETITION IB (IBC)/ 89(ND)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench, comprising Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member) and Shri P.S.N. Prasad (Judicial Member), has rejected an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited. The Tribunal observed that the amount of default was Rs. 4,15,08,378.56 and the date of defaults were stated to be 05.11.2020 and 25.11.2020. Since the dates of default were after 25^th March 2020, the petition was barred by Section 10A of IBC, 2016.

NCLT Mumbai Rejects Section 9 Application For Initiation Of CIRP Against Elder Projects Limited

Case Title: Nanz Med Science Pharma Private Limited vs Elder Projects Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 245/MB/C-I/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench, comprising Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member) and Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member), has rejected an application under Section 9 of IBC seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Elder Projects Limited. The Bench observed that the date of default was beyond 25th March 2020 and the petition fell within the purview of Section 10A of IBC. Also, the Operational Creditor failed to mention the date of default in Part 4 of the Petition.

Entries Made In Balance Sheet Amounts To Acknowledgement Of Debt As Per Section 18 Of Limitation Act, 1963: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: M/s SKC Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs M/s EOS Hospitality Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: IB-356/(ND)/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application filed under Section 9 of IBC has reiterated that entries made in the Balance Sheet amounts to acknowledgement of debt as per section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.

Interest Bearing Refundable Advance Paid Under An MoU Which Has Lost Legal Force Can Still Be Categorized As Financial Debt: NCLT Ahmedabad

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has categorized an advance amount as Financial Debt which was paid under an Memorandum of Understanding with no legal force and which was refundable with an interest @ 18% p.a.

The Tribunal remarked that it is neither dwelling into whether the interest is payable or not as the MoU has no legal force, nor is it dwelling on whether the debt is secured or unsecured. It is only deciding on whether the said advance should be treated as operational debt or financial debt. The Tribunal has directed the IRP to consider the claims of the Applicants as Financial Debts.

Nature Of Decree Depends On The Nature Of Transaction From Which The Decretal Debt Has Arisen: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: Mr. J.K Shah and Anr vs Tridhaatu Builders LLP

Case No.:CP (IB) No.388/MB-IV/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has reiterated that nature of decree depends on the nature of transaction from which the decretal debt has arisen. The Tribunal refused to categorize the failure to return an amount advanced in lieu of a residential flat as “Operational Debt”.

NCLT Mumbai Order Dissolution Of Proterra Investment Advisors Private Limited Under Section 59 Of IBC

Case Title: Proterra Investment Advisors India Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.39/MB-IV/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has ordered for dissolution of Proterra Investment Advisors Private Limited (“Company”) under Section 59 of IBC. The Company was neither carrying any business and nor earning any profits. The Board of Directors of the Company resolved to voluntarily liquidate the Company and its two directors filed an affidavit stating that the Company neither has any debt nor was being liquidated to defraud any person. Accordingly, the Company moved a petition before NCLT through its Liquidator for initiation of voluntary liquidation proceedings.

NCLT New Delhi Orders Liquidation Of M/S. Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd Under Section 33 Of IBC

Case Name : M/s. Five Ess Precision Components Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd

Case No. Company Petition No. (IB) – 822/(ND) /2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has ordered for Liquidation of M/s. Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”). After initiation of CIRP, the CoC resolved to Liquidate the Corporate Debtor with 100% voting as the Corporate Debtor was not a Going Concern since the last 2 years before the initiation of CIRP. All the assets of the Corporate Debtor had already been realized by Hero Fincorp Ltd under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before commencement of CIRP.

NCLT New Delhi Orders Liquidation Of Samtex Desinz Private Limited Under Section 33 Of IBC

Case Title: Orator Marketing Private Limited vs Samtex Desinz Private Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB) – 908/ND/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has ordered for Liquidation of Samtex Desinz Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The Corporate Debtor is a non-government company involved in dressing and dyeing of fur and manufacture of articles of fur. After being admitted into CIRP, no resolution plan was received for the Corporate Debtor and hence resolution for liquidation was passed by the CoC.

NCLT Mumbai Approves Resolution Plan Of ARCIL Lead Consortium For Unimark Remedies Limited

Case Title: ICICI Bank Limited vs Unimark Remedies Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.197/MB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has approved a 127 crore worth resolution plan of ARCIL, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Shamrock Pharmachemi (P) Ltd as consortium for Unimark Remedies Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The average Liquidation value and Fair value of the assets of the company amounted to 124.02 crores and 178.23 crores respectively. The resolution plan offered an 11.2% recovery of 1072.65 crores to the Financial Creditors amounting to 121 crores. It further offered a 1.9% recovery of 50.16 crores amounting to 1 crore to Operational Creditors. The resolution plan further offered a 45.24% recovery of 11.05 crores amounting to 5 crores towards workmen and employee dues.

NCLT Mumbai Approves M/S Steel Line’s Resolution Plan For J-Marks Exim (India) Private Limited

Case Title: Punjab National Bank vs J-Marks Exim (India) Private Limited

Case No.: CP No. (IB) 2176/ (MB)/ C-IV/ 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has approved a 8.91 crore Resolution Plan of M/s Steel Line (India) Private Limited for J-Marks Exim (India) Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The Resolution Plan offered a 14.9% recovery of 53.48 crores to the Secured Financial Creditor amounting to 7.98 crores. It further offered Rs. 18.71 Lakhs in total for claims of operational creditors, other creditors and payment towards statutory duties including Income Tax and Service Tax.

Poaching Of Employees By The Operational Creditor Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of Pre-Existing Dispute: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: India Medtronic Private Limited vs Healthcare Associates Private Limited

Case No. C.P. (IB) No. 41/KB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, comprising Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has refused to term poaching of employees by the Operational Creditor as a pre-existing dispute. Even though the Corporate Debtor had blamed the Operational Creditor for causing business losses due to poaching of its employees, this action cannot be called a pre-existing dispute as it did not fit the definition of genuine dispute given under the Supreme Court judgment of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, the Tribunal held.

Different Work Orders Can Be Clubbed To Satisfy The Minimum Threshold Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: S. V. R Enterprises vs Netizen Engineering Private Limited

Case No: CP (IB) No.88/MB-IV/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has reiterated that debts arising from different work orders can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit. Reliance was placed on the NCLAT judgment of M/s. A2 Interiors Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (2021) SCC online NCLT 438 wherein it was held that separate claims can be part of single application.

Financial Creditors As Minority Debenture Holder Entitled To Initiate CIRP Irrespective Of Presence Of Debenture Trustee: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Clearwater Capital Partners Singapore Fund IV Private Limited and Anr vs Rajesh Estates and Nirman Private Limited

Case No.: C.P.(IB) 560 OF 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member), has held the Debenture Trustee is not the only person empowered to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(“CIRP”), even though the Financial Creditors were Minority Debenture Holders. It was further observed that Section 71(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 construes Debenture Trustee as one who shall protect the interests of Debenture Holders. It was observed that even though Financial Creditors are Minority Debenture Holders, the Debenture Trustee is not the only person empowered to initiate an action.

IBC-NCLT Chandigarh Approves Resolution Plan For Haryana Telecom Limited

Case Title: Parivartan Investment and Finance Company vs Haryana Telecom limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.515/Chd/Chd/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chandigarh bench, comprising of Shri Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Shri Subrata Kumar Dash (Technical Member) has approved a Rs. 25 crore worth resolution plan of Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Mehlawat for Haryana Telecom Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). The resolution plan offered a 15.33% recovery of 8.20 crores to the Secured Financial Creditors amounting to 1.25 crores. It further offered a 24.10% recovery of 86.63 crores amounting to 20.88 crores to Operational Creditors.

IBC-NCLT Chennai Approves Resolution Plan For Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Case Title: CA M. Suresh Kumar (RP of Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Case No: TPC/1/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai bench, comprising of Shri Ramalingam Sudhakar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sameer Kakar (Technical Member) has approved a Rs. 105.30 crore worth resolution plan of Mr. M.K. Rajagopalan for Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”).

The final settlement involved sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor through the resolution plan and the remaining assets called the “Leasehold Assets” would undergo Liquidation, which were treated as “Excluded Assets” by the CoC. The Liquidation Value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor was determined to be Rs. 91.87 crores. The Liquidation Value of the Leasehold Land was determined to be Rs. 544.97 crores. The resolution plan offered a 0.0023% recovery of Rs. 39,274 crores to the Secured Financial Creditors amounting to Rs. 100.80 crores. It did not offer any recovery to Unsecured Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors.

NCLT Chennai Orders Dissolution Of M/S Pillar Industries India Private Limited Under Section 59 Of IBC

Case Title: M/s Pillar Industries India Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB)/ 80(CHE)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai bench, comprising of Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (Judicial Member) and Sameer Kakar (Technical Member), has ordered for dissolution of M/s Pillar Industries India Private Limited (“the Company”) under section 59 of IBC. The Company filed a petition before NCLT Chennai through its Liquidator for initiation of voluntary liquidation proceedings. The Company was incorporated on 11.03.2020 but it was not able to commence business operations due to COVID-19 pandemic. There were 2 directors of the company who had infused capital in it and had given a declaration of solvency dated 16.08.2021. The assets of the Company amounted to Rs. 8,86,42,273 and the Company had no debts.

CoC Resolution With 66% Voting Share Not A Pre-Condition For Liquidation When No Resolution Plan Received By The AA: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: State Bank of India vs Suryajyothi Spinning Mills Ltd

Case No. ;IA No. 96 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 166/7/HDB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising Smt. Telaprolu Rajani (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has held that a resolution by the CoC with 66% voting share for Liquidation of Corporate Debtor is not necessary when no resolution plan is received by the Adjudicating Authority. It was observed that the Tribunal has the power to order for Liquidation when no resolution plan is submitted. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority only has to see whether any resolution plan has been presented before it prior to the order of Liquidation under Section 33(1)(a). It is immaterial whether the CoC has resolved for liquidation or whether there was no coordination between the RP and CoC for an order of Liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) when no resolution plan is received by the Adjudicating Authority.

Interest Can Be Added To Reach 1 Crore Threshold Only If Provided In The Agreement: NCLT New Delhi Reiterates

Case Title:M/s Bhotika Trade and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case No. ;(IB)-598(ND)2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Bachu Venkat Balram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has reiterated that interest can be charged on Operational Debt only if it is clearly stipulated in the invoices raised. Reliance was placed on the NCLAT judgment of Pavan Enterprises vs Gammon India Ltd [Company in Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 148 of 2018 wherein it was held that debt will include interest if it is payable in the terms of the agreement. Further Reliance was placed on the NCLAT judgment of Prashant Agarwal vs Vikash Parasrampuria & Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) No. 690 of 2022] wherein it was held that total amount of maintainability of a claim will include interest on delayed payment clearly stipulated in the invoice itself

Merely Sending Of Summons By DLSA Can’t Be Considered A Proceeding: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Supernova Tech Craft Engineering Overseas Limited v Valtrom Technologies Private Limited

Case No. COMPANY PETITION IB (IBC)/334(ND)/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri P.S.N Prasad (Judicial Member) and Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member), has held that merely sending summons by District Legal Services Authority cannot be considered a proceeding and it further doesn’t fall within the ambit of “suit” or “arbitration proceedings” under Section 8(2) of IBC, 2016.

New Claims Cannot Be Admitted When Resolution Plan Is Approved By The CoC And Is Pending Before The AA For Approval: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: D.S. Kulkarni and Associates vs Manoj Kumar Agarwal (Resolution Professional) in the matter of Bank of Maharashtra vs DS Kulkarni Developers Ltd.

Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 1633/MB/C-I/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has reiterated that new claims cannot be admitted when the resolution plan has been approved by the CoC and is pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval.

Attempt To Convert Operational Debt Into Financial Debt; NCLT Chennai Rejects Section 7 Petition

Case Title: Step Stones Infras Private Limited vs Yes and Yes Infracon (P) Ltd

Case No. IBA/403/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Shri Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Sameer Kakar (Technical Member), has held that transfer of the same work by a subsequent MOU would not alter the nature of the original transaction.

Approval Of Resolution Does Not Absolve Guarantor; NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: Anchor Leasing Private Limited vs Sejal Realty and Infrastructure Limited

Case No. C.P. No. 889/(IB)-MB-V/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has reiterated that the liability of the guarantor does not ipso facto come to an end merely with the approval of the resolution plan against the Principal Borrower.

The Bench observed that during the CIRP against the Principal Borrower, the Corporate Debtor voluntarily agreed to forego their right of subrogation against the successful resolution applicant. This showed that the liability of the Corporate Debtor as guarantor did not come to an end with the approval of the resolution plan . Further, there is no specific mention in the resolution plan that the liability of the guarantors of the Principal Borrower would come to an end with the approval of the plan.

Sec. 126 Of ICA, 1872 Can’t Be Interpreted To Mean That Co-Borrower And Guarantor Can’t Be The Same Person: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited vs M/s. Whiz Enterprise Private Limited

Case No.: CP No. 530/(IB)-MB-V/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has held that Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 cannot be interpreted to mean that co-borrower and the guarantor cannot be one and the same person. Further, the Corporate Debtor voluntarily entered into the contract in the capacity of a Co-borrower as well as the Guarantor. Hence it cannot contend that the contract was hit by Section 126 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

NCLT Mumbai Initiates Insolvency Process Against Future Lifestyle Fashions, A Future Group Enterprise

Case Title: Bank of India v Future Lifestyle Fashions Limited

Case No.: CP No. (IB) 959/ MB/ 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd., which is a Future Group enterprise promoted by Mr. Kishore Biyani. Further, Mr. Ravi Sethia has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”).

NCLT Chennai Order Dissolution Of M/s Boss Profiles Limited Under Section 54 Of IBC

Case Title: M/s Boss Profiles Limited

Case No.: TCP/126/IB/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai Bench, has ordered for dissolution of M/s Boss Profiles Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) under section 54 of IBC on a petition filed by the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. E-auctions were conducted, however, there was no bidder paid the advance amount and the bid application. So the assets of the Corporate Debtor were sold via private sale of assets for a price of 9.75 crores. The Liquidation amount was distributed amongst the Secured Financial Creditors in the order of priority given under Section 53 of IBC.

Flats Sold After Completion Of Construction To Be Included In Computation Of Threshold Limit Under Section 7, IBC: NCLT New Delhi Reiterates

Case Title: Uttam Singhal & Ors vs M/s Anushree Home Developers Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: IB-762/ND/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri P.S.N Prasad (Judicial Member) and Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member), has reiterated that the persons to who flats have already been sold after completing the construction would still be allottees and would be included for computation of threshold limit of Section 7 of IBC.

Claim Of Compensation Cannot Become Part Of Operational Debt Until The Liability Is Adjudicated By A Competent Authority: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Chandrashekhar Export Pvt. Ltd vs Babanraoji Shinde Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd.

Case No. C.P. No. 3667/IBC/MB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has held that Operational Debt must be crystallized, undisputed and not something which requires adjudication by a competent authority.

Person Who Only Advances An Amount For Supply Of Goods & Services Is Not An “Operational Creditor”: NCLT Chennai

Case Title: Mr.V. Umadevi vs Kumarna Gin & Pressing Pvt. Limited

Case No.: IBA/840(CHE)/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai Bench, comprising Shri Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Sameer Kakar (Technical Member), has held that the payment of advance amount to receive the supply of goods and services from the Corporate Debtor does not come within the ambit of Operational Debt.

NCLT Delhi Admits Go Airlines Into Insolvency, Directs IRP To Ensure Employees Are Not Retrenched

Case Title: Go Airlines (India) Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-264(PB)/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has admitted Go Airlines (India) Limited into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) and Mr. Abhilash Lal has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”). The Bench has directed the IRP to ensure that retrenchment of employees is not resorted to as a matter of course. Further, any such decision/event should be brought to the attention of the NCLT.

Also, it was held that under Section 10 of IBC there is no mandatory requirement of issuing notice to the Creditor(s) at the pre-admission stage, rather giving notice to the Creditor(s) is a matter of discretion to be exercised on a case-to-case basis on valid grounds. Further, The Bench held that there is no bar in entertaining/considering/adjudicating a Section 65 Application after the initiation of the CIRP.

NCLT Indore Permits Forensic Audit Of Corporate Debtor On An Application Made By Financial Creditor

Case Title: Motel Rahans Pvt Ltd. v JSM Devcons Pvt Ltd.

Case No.: C.P.(IB)/56(MP)2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Indore Bench, comprising of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member), has allowed an application filed by a secured Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor wherein transaction audit of the Corporate Debtor was prayed for. However, the Financial Creditor (Applicant) would bear the fees of the Auditor. Further, the decision to avail the services of a Professional to run the affairs of CIRP lies with the Resolution Professional. The role of Committee of Creditors is limited to approving the fees of such Professional.

NCLT Allahabad Approves Dwiti Construction Pvt. Ltd’s Resolution Plan For M/S Vaishali Real Estate Private Limited

Case Title: Mr. Amitabh Singh vs M/S Vaishali Real Estate Private Limited

Case No: C.P. (IB)/207(ALD) 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Allahabad bench, comprising of Shri Praveen Gupta (Judicial Member) and Shri Subrata Ashish Verma (Technical Member) has approved a 3.91 crore resolution plan of Dwiti Construction Pvt. Ltd for M/S Vaishali Real Estate Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) under section 30(6) of IBC. The Resolution Professional initially admitted claims of 2.91 crores from Unsecured Financial Creditor. The Fair Value and Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor were determined to be 6.30 crores and 3.93 crores respectively.

NCLT Kochi Orders Liquidation Of Samson And Sons Builders And Developers Under Section 33 Of IBC

Case Title: Vijayakumaran J vs Samson and Sons builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB)/5/KOB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi bench, comprising of Shri P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has ordered for Liquidation of Samson and Sons builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”). The maximum time period under Section 12 of IBC is 330 days, but 519 days had already expired. The NCLT observed that maximization of the assets of the Corporate Debtor is the object of IBC but the said maximization has to be achieved within the timeline provided. Therefore, an order for liquidation was passed instead of extending the CIRP period.

Section 9 Petition Is Not Maintainable If Affidavit Under Section 9(3)(B) Is Not Filed: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: M/s Welcome Steel vs Kavish International Trading Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.778/MB-IV/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that Affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) of IBC is mandatory in nature and the same must be in relation to the notice of dispute with regard to receipt or non- receipt of the payments made by the Corporate Debtor.
Section 9 Petition Is Not Maintainable If Demand Notice Was Not In Prescribed Format: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. Ven Infra Projects vs M/s. Valentis Laboratories Private Limited

Case No. CP (IB) No. 54/9/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising Smt. Telaprolu Rajani (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has held that mandate of Section 8 IBC, 2016 need to be fulfilled before an application under Section 9 IBC is filed. Thus Section 9 IBC application is not maintainable if the Demand Notice is not in the prescribed format.

NCLT Hyderabad Approves The Resolution Plan Of Jindal Saw Ltd. For Sathavahana Ispat Ltd.

Case Title: M/S Thirumala Logistics v M/S Sathavahana Ispat Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) NO. 17/9/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has approved the resolution plan of Jindal Saw Limited for Sathavahana Ispat Limited.

The Resolution Plan involves merger of the Corporate Debtor with the SRA and the plan is valued at Rs. 693,60,76,158/-. The Secured Financial Creditors are proposed to be paid Rs. 672.22 Crores as against a claim of Rs. 1747 Crores. The workmen and employees of Corporate Debtor are being paid the claimed amount in full. The Operational Creditors are being paid Rs. 1 Crore as against an admitted claim of Rs. 64,70,06,108/-. The Government is being treated as a secured creditor and being paid Rs. 12.40 Crores as against a claim of Rs. 32.22 Crores. In total, Rs. 693.62 Crores is being paid as against a total claim of Rs. 1954.98 Crores.

Financiers Discounting Invoices Of The Corporate Debtor To Become Operational Creditors: NCLT Bengaluru Reiterates

Case Title: Invoice Discounters of BNH Infra Projects (India) Private Limited vs BNH Infra Projects (India) Private Limited

Case No. C.P. (IB) No.95/BB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Bengaluru Bench, comprising Justice (Retd.) T. Krishnavalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has held that discounting of invoices of the Corporate Debtor would make the Financiers step into the shoes of the Corporate Debtor and make them Operational Debtors rather than Financial Creditors.

Land Owners Entering Into Joint Development Agreements For Sharing Of Profit Do Not Come Within The Ambit Of Operational Creditors: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Mrs Gurmeet Kaur Gill vs Raheja Developers Limited

Case No.: C.P. (IB)/393(PB)/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (Judicial Member) and Shri Avinash K. Srivastava (Technical Member), has held that an agreement in the nature of a Joint Development Agreement for a project with sharing of profit in an agreed ratio does not come within the ambit of an Operational Debt. It was further observed that there may be a wide variety of development contracts like Collaboration Agreement, Joint Development Agreement, etc under different names which may have a component in the nature of a loan. The purposes of these agreements involve giving rise to mutually binding legal relation in lieu of consideration. These types of agreements cannot come within the purview of an Operational Debt and what needs to be seen is the real intention of the parties.

NCLT Mumbai Admits Section 7 Petition Against M/S Tulip Hotels Private Limited For Defaults Of More Than Rs. 900 Crores

Case Title: J C Flowers Asset Reconstructions Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Tulip Hotels Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 05/MB-IV/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against M/s Tulip Hotels Private Limited. The Corporate Debtor had defaulted in payment of two Guarantees amounting to Rs. 900,00,00,000/- (Rs. 900 Crores) in its capacity as a guarantor for loans disbursed by Yes Bank to Cox and Kings Limited and Ezeege One Travel & Tours Limited (“Principal Burrowers”).

Prior Approval Of AA Under Section 33(5) Mandatory Before Initiation Of Legal Proceedings By Liquidator: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Birla Cotsyn (India) Limited vs Birla Global Corporate Private Limited

Case No.: C.P. 565 OF 2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has held that prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 33(5) of IBC is mandatory before initiating a legal proceeding on behalf of the Corporate Debtor under Liquidation.

NCLT Mumbai Dismisses Section 7 Petition Against Direct Media Distribution Ventures Limited

Case Title: IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs Direct Media Distribution Ventures Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 827/MB-IV/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has dismissed a petition under Section 7 of IBC against Direct Media Distribution Ventures Limited and refused to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against it. The date of default fell within the period of Section 10A of IBC, therefore, the filing of application under Section 7 of IBC is barred forever.

NCLT Mumbai Admits Section 7 Petition Against Sterling Oil Resources Limited For Defaults Of More Than Rs. 1655 Crores

Case Title: State Bank of India vs Sterling Oil Resources Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.596/MB-IV/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Sterling Oil Resources Limited. The Tribunal observed that the DRT had issued a decree for a sum of 1217.60 crores in favour of the Financial Creditor. This amount had not been paid even though some amount had been paid under the One Time Settlement. Since there was a default in the payment of a Financial Debt, the Application was admitted.

A Petition Against A Corporate Guarantor Cannot Be Dismissed Simply Because A Resolution Plan For The Corporate Debtor Is Under Consideration: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: M/s. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs Sadguru Multitrade Private Limited

Case No.: C.P. 381 OF 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has held that insolvency proceedings can be initiated against both the Corporate Debtor and Corporate Guarantor simultaneously and a petition against a Corporate Guarantor cannot be dismissed simple on the ground that a Resolution Plan is under consideration.

NCLT Is Not A Forum For Adjudication Of Fraud: NCLT Cuttack Reiterates

Case Title: Srimanta Kumar Tripathy and Anusuya Tripathy vs S.S Mining and Infra Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 38/CB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Cuttack Bench, comprising Shri P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has held reiterated that NCLT is not a forum for adjudication of Fraud or determination of Forgery. It has reiterated that a joint Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC and Joint petition under Section 9 of IBC is not permitted.

Advance Paid Towards Transfer Of Leasehold Rights In An Immovable Property Is Not An Operational Debt: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: RSM Infra Partners vs Siddhivinayak Skyscrapers Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 1155/MB-IV/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that an amount paid as advance towards an agreement of transfer of leasehold rights in an immovable property does not come within the ambit of Operational Debt. It was observed that the debt has arisen due to failure of the Corporate Debtor to transfer the leasehold rights. The agreement being for purchase of leasehold rights in an immovable property, the immovable property is neither a good, nor a service nor a claim for repayment of dues arising under any law. Thus, the amount claimed does not for part of an Operational Debt.

IBC Amendment Prescribing Minimum Number Of Homebuyers Applicable To All Company Petitions Pending For Final Admission: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: S. Ramasubramonian vs Shree Sukhakarta Developers Private Limited

Case No.: C.P. No. 821/IBC/MB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member), has held that the IBC amendment prescribing the minimum number of homebuyers for initiation Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of IBC is applicable to all the pending Company Petitions that are pending for final admission.

Registration Of A Partnership Firm Not A Pre-Requisite For A Section 9 Petition: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Haren Sanghvi & Associates vs CDigital Arts & Crafts Private Limited

Case No.: C.P. 4427/IB/MB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that registration of partnership firm is not a pre-requisite for filing of a petition under Section 9 of IBC.

Allegation Of Fraud In Appointment Of IRP As RP Is No Ground For Rejection Of Resolution Plan Under Section 30(2)(e): NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Mr. Amit Sangal vs Prince MFG Industries Private Limited

Case No.: CP(IB)934/MB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has held that the ground that the Interim Resolution Professional had filed false and fabricated documents to show himself appointed as the RP is no legal ground to reject the Resolution Plan under section 30(2)(3) of IBC.

NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Eicher Motors: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: DHL Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. v Eicher Motors Ltd.

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-272(ND)2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Special Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri L. N. Gupta (Technical Member), has declined to admit Eicher Motors Ltd. into insolvency since there are pre-existing disputes between the parties.

DHL Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian division of Deutsche Post DHL group and is engaged in the business of logistic operations. Eicher Motors Ltd. is the listed parent of Royal Enfield motorcycles, which is the world’s oldest motorcycle brand. Eicher Motors is a multinational company with its operation in over 60 countries worldwide and its flagship product in India has been the ‘Royal Enfield Bullet’.

Go Airlines | NCLT Directs RP To Protect Assets Under Control Of Corporate Debtor

Case Title: Go Airlines (India) Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-264(PB)/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Special Bench, comprising of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (President) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has directed the Resolution Professional to protect the assets in possession and control of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. in terms of Section 25(1) of IBC. The direction has been given in view of an application filed by the Lessors of the Aircraft engines, who have raised concerns regarding the need to timely service and maintain the engines.

Further the Interim Resolution Professional has been replaced by Mr. Shailendra Ajmera as the Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Ltd.

NCLT Hyderabad Rejects Resolution Plan For Being Incompliant With Regulation 36B 4(A) Of CIRP Regulations:

Case Title: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v Viceroy Hotels Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 219/7/HDB/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has rejected the Resolution Plan submitted for Viceroy Hotels for being incompliant with Regulation 36B 4(A) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”).

The Performance Bank Guarantee submitted by the Resolution Applicant was valid for 6 months period, whereas, the plan implementation schedule was spread over 675 days. The Bench held that the Performance Bank Guarantee must remain valid for the entire period of plan implementation schedule, which is a mandatory provision as per Regulation 36B 4(A) of CIRP Regulations. Since the resolution plan was found incompliant of this mandatory legal provision, the Bench rejected the plan on this basis alone.

NCLT Delhi Approves Ace Infracity’s Resolution Plan For Three C Homes; Development Work Of ‘Lotus City’ To Conclude Within 24 Months

Case Title: Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha v M/s Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: IB-432(ND)/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member), has approved the resolution plan of M/s. Ace Infracity Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Successful Resolution Applicant/SRA”) for Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd.

The Resolution Plan is valued at Rs. 140,39,27,000/-. No claims have been received from the operational creditors and hence they have been paid NIL under the plan.

With regard to Farmer’s Compensation, the SRA is offering 100% of principal of farmer’s compensation (Rs. 71.66 Crores) which is included in Rs. 173.46 crores agreed to pay to YEIDA.

Further, the SRA has undertaken to complete the development work of the plots in the Lotus City Project and hand over the units to the allottees. The Resolution Plan is valid for a period of 24 months for closure and handover. Also, the SRA will seek RERA re-registration of the Project for completion of work.

NCLT Approves Plan For Galada Power And Telecommunications Ltd.: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai vs. M/s. Galada Power And Telecommunications Ltd.

Case No.: CP(IB) No.384/7/HDB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Shri Dr. N. V. Rama Krishna Badarinath (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Amrutha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for M/s. Galada Power and Telecommunications Ltd. The Resolution Plan is valued at Rs. 42.13 Crores.

The SRA has proposed to Rs. 8.70 Crores towards repairs, refurbishment and Working Capital for revival of the Corporate Debtor.

The resolution plan proposes to pay the Secured Financial Creditors an amount of Rs. 29.32 Crores against an admitted claim of 2107.28 Crores. The Operational Creditors such as the Government will be paid Rs. 8.62 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 345.01 Lakhs. The Workmen of the Corporate Debtor are to be paid Rs. 17.83 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 18.26 Lakhs. The Employees of the Corporate Debtor are to be paid Rs. 31.19 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 71.16 Lakhs. While the other Operational Creditors will be paid Rs. 3.11 Lakhs as against an admitted claim of Rs. 124.30 Lakhs.

NCLT Approves Resolution Plan For D S Kulkarni Developers, Homebuyers Will Get Flats Against Their Claims: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Bank of Maharashtra v D.S. Kulkarni Developers Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 1633/MB/C-I/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by a consortium of Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd., Classic Promoters and Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Atul Builders for D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. Under the Resolution Plan, the Homebuyers of the Corporate Debtor’s projects will be given flats against their claim amount.

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

IICA And NALSAR Launch ‘LL.M In Insolvency & Bankruptcy Laws’ Programme: MCA Issues Press Release

On 8^th June 2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”), Government of India has issued a Press Release intimating that the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) in association with NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, has launched LL.M programme in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws in an event held in New Delhi. Interested students can apply online at www.nalsar.ac.in till 31.07.2023.

The LLM course is a two-year full time LL.M. Degree Residential Course, with 51 credits arranged over four semesters, equally divided between the two campuses of IICA and NALSAR. Initially, a total of 60 seats is being made available for each batch. The registration process for the course would start from 08.06.2023 and end on 31.07.2023. The classes would commence from 5th October, 2023 at NALSAR campus.

MCA Notification: Moratorium Inapplicable To Contracts Entered Into By The CD Under Oilfields (Regulation And Development) Act

File No.: Insol-30/1/2023-Insolvency-MCA

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, has issued a notification dated 14.06.2023, notifying that Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) would be inapplicable to agreements/transactions/arrangements entered into by the Corporate Debtor under the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948. The notification has been published in Extraordinary Gazette of India.

“S.O. 2660(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), the Central Government hereby notifies that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), shall not apply where the corporate debtor has entered into any of the following transactions, arrangements or agreements, namely: -

(i) the Production Sharing Contracts, Revenue Sharing Contracts, Exploration Licenses and Mining Leases made under the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (53 of 1948) and rules made thereunder; and

(ii) any transactions, arrangements or agreements, including Joint Operating Agreement, connected or ancillary to the transactions, arrangements or agreements referred to in clause (i).”

HIGH COURT

No Ipso Facto Absolvement Of Guarantor’s Liability Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 26355 of 2022

The High Court of Allahabad Bench comprising of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit, has held that approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC, does not ipso facto absolve the surety/guarantor of the Corporate Debtor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract of guarantee. To what extent, the liability of a guarantor can be pressed into service would depend on the terms of the guarantee/contract itself.

Avoidance Applications Survive CIRP, Can Be Heard After Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: LPA 37/2021, Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000257.

The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, has held that that avoidance applications filed under IBC survive even after approval of the resolution plan, in cases where Resolution Plans are unable to account for such applications. These applications can be heard even after CIRP stands concluded. The Bench observed, “…it cannot be accepted that avoidance applications will be rendered infructuous in situations wherein the resolution plan could not have accounted for avoidance applications due to exigencies that delayed initiation of action in respect of avoidable transactions beyond the submission of a resolution plan before the adjudicating authority. This is because such an interpretation will render the provisions pertaining to suspect transactions otiose and let the beneficiaries of such transactions walk away, scot-free……”.

Borrowers Pays Full Compromise Amount: Allahabad High Court Directs Bank To Reconsider Wilful Default

Case Title: Konarkagro Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank Of Baroda & Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 35965 of 2022]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 59

The Allahabad High Court Bench, comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, has directed the Bank to re-consider its decision of declaring the Borrowers (Petitioners) as wilful defaulters, as a One Time Settlement (OTS) was subsequently entered between the Bank and Borrowers and full compromise amount has been towards the Petitioner Company’s accounts. The Bench also granted liberty to the Borrowers to avail legal remedy if the Bank’s decision on their representation is not favourable to them.

Whether Proceedings Under NI Act Become Infructuous If Creditor Opts IBC?: Delhi High Court Issues Notice

Case Title: Ashwani Arya &Anr. vs. Rajat Mitra Proprietor M/s. Caldron Graphics

Case No.: CRL MC No. 1376/2023

The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh, has issued notice in the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, wherein quashing of summons issued in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been sought by the Director of Corporate Debtor, which is under liquidation. The issue before the Court is whether proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act become infructuous if the Creditor subsequently avails remedy under IBC in view of the same debt and default and the Corporate Debtor goes under liquidation.

Karnataka High Court Stays Insolvency Proceedings Against Mantri Developers Ltd

Case Title: Mr. Sushil Mantri v The Registrar (NCLT Bengaluru) & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 7706/2023

The High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has stayed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) initiated against Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru for a period of 3 weeks until NCLAT hears the appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. is a Mr. Sushil Mantri promoted company and a part of Mantri Group of Companies. It is engaged in the business of real estate development and has various residential, retail and hospitality projects in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Pune and Chennai.

IBC-Gujarat High Court Stays The Order Of IBBI Disciplinary Committee

Case title: Bhupendra Singh Rajput v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6988 of 2023

The Gujarat High Court Bench, comprising of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, while adjudicating a petition filed in Bhupendra Singh Rajput v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), has stayed the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”), whereby the registration of an Insolvency Professional was suspended over alleged violations of the IBC provisions. The ground of challenge was that the coram of Disciplinary Committee comprised of only one Member, which contravened Section 220(1) of IBC.

IBBI

IBBI Revises Format For Serving Copy Of Application To Board

Circular No. IBBI/LAD/58/2023

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has issued a Circular dated 04.03.2023, revising the format in which a copy of petition under IBC is to be served to IBBI by the Applicant, before filing of such application for initiation of CIRP. The IBBI has revised format for serving a copy of the application, to ensure filing of authentic information and enabling sharing of information with IU efficiently. The Revised Format requires the Applicant to mention its personal details, details of the application and also of the proposed Insolvency Professional. A step-by-step guide for submission of the application has also been provided alongwith the Circular. Further, on submission of the application online, the applicant shall get an acknowledgment. The provisions of the Circular supersede IBBI’s Circular No. IBBI/IU/35/2020 dated 29.10.2020.

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

Ministry Of Corporate Affairs Invites Public Comments On Proposed Changes In IBC

File No.- 30/38/2021-Insolvency

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, has issued a circular inviting comments from the public on the changes proposed to be made in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The proposed changes relate to the admission of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) applications, streamlining the insolvency resolution process, recasting the liquidation process, and the role of service providers under the IBC. The proposed amendments are:

• Mandatory to admit Section 7 application where occurrence of a default is established.
• Approval of multiple resolution plans in respect of the same CD.
• Improving recoveries for operational creditors in liquidation: unsecured creditors (Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors and any government or authority) other than the workmen and employees shall be treated equally for distribution under Section 53 of IBC.
• Improving outcomes in real estate cases: during a CIRP or a project specific resolution process, the allottees may request ownership and possession of a completed unit of the real estate project, which cannot be permitted during the moratorium under the IBC. To benefit such allottees, Section 28 of IBC may be amended to enable the Resolution Professional to transfer the ownership and possession of a plot, apartment or building to the allottees with the consent of the CoC.
• Reinstating CIRP: IBC to enable reinstatement of the CIRP during the liquidation process, where the liquidator continues to carry on the CD’s business, and it is possible to revive the CD as determined by the CoC.
• Intermingling the assets of the CD and its guarantors: in certain cases while a building, plant, or machinery may belong to the CD, the land on which it is situated may belong to a guarantor. It is proposed to include such assets of the guarantor in the general pool of assets available for the CIRP for efficient resolution of the CD.
• Protection of a resolution applicant post implementation of the resolution plan concerning civil liabilities.
• Direct Dissolution of the CD: CoC can request the AA to dissolve the CD if it believes that conducting the liquidation process in such circumstances may not be feasible or beneficial for the stakeholders.
• Replacement of the liquidator: CoC to seek replacement of the RP conducting the CIRP from becoming the liquidator by a vote of at least sixty-six per cent of voting shares.
• Use of technology.
• Increasing reliance on the record submitted with the Information Utilities during the Admission Process.
• Restricting the right of the promoters to propose an Interim Resolution Professional.
• Empowering the AA to impose penalties for violations of IBC.
• Expanding the applicability of the Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution framework.