IBC Cases Weekly Round Up [17th March-23rd March 2025]
Mohd Malik Chauhan
24 March 2025 2:00 PM
Nominal Index: Manish Mukim v. Ms. Rakhi and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 617 of 2023 VISHNOO MITTAL VERSUS M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314 Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited The Ruby Versus Ashdan Properties Private Limited and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1566 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5973, 6380 of...
Nominal Index:
Manish Mukim v. Ms. Rakhi and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 617 of 2023
VISHNOO MITTAL VERSUS M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited The Ruby Versus Ashdan Properties Private Limited and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1566 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5973, 6380 of 2024
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. V Chief Engineer (Commercial), Ajmer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1411 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5124, 5125, 5126, 7549 of 2024
PTC Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Munjal, RP of Nipman Fasteners Industries Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 444 of 2025
Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia Successful Resolution Applicant of MBL Infrastructure Ltd Versus IDBI Bank Limited and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 198 of 2025
M/s. Findoc Finvest Private Limited Registered Office Versus Mr. Surendera Raj Gang and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.249 of 2025
Mrs. Madhubala Chauhan Suspended director of Karni Developers & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 604 of 2024
M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. v. Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 187 of 2025
State Bank of India vs. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 62 of 2025 & I.A. No. 245 of 2025
Rajabhau Shinde Versus S.M. Electric Works Through Shri. Sunil Madhukar Saraf & Ors.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 826 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2989 of 2024
Debarata Ray Choudhuri v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1985 of 2024
Gaurav Jindal Versus Debashish Nanda, RP Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2076 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7357 of 2024
Mr. Pankaj Kalra (Suspended director of Essar Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Limited) Vs Greeka Greens Solution (India) Limited and Anr.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1783 of 2024
Paresh Rastogi and Ors. Versus M/Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024
Divyesh Desai RP of GPT Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Bhuj, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1103 of 2024 & I.A. No.3974 of 2024
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Through Its Manager (Institution) v. Sandeep Gupta & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 320 of 2025
Dilipkumar Lokooram Arora, (Member of Suspended Board of Directors) Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Versus KTR Management Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2183 of 2024
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Verma Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 592 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3167 of 2024 & 1166 of 2025
Vaibhav Goel & Anr. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 330
Atul Babulal Prajapati & Anr. (Suspended Director and Promoter of WSH Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt & Ors, I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024
Rajendra Bisht, Erstwhile promoter of M/s Ambassador Logistics Pvt Ltd. V M/s Satkar Logistics Pvt Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 285 of 2022
Ketan C Bagadia V Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, Liquidator of Nexus Electro Steel Ltd. Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Nexus Electro Steel Ld., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins)No.36/2025 (IA Nos. 127 & 128/2025)
Rakesh Arora & Anr. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Rockman Advertising & Marketing (India) Ltd. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1606 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5859 of 2024
M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited V. State Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 974 of 2023
Mr. Padmakumar K. C., Liquidator of M/s. Asten Realtors Private Limited vs. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited & Anr.
Aegis Resolution Service Private Limited, Resolution Professional of Radius & Deserve Land Developers Private Limited V. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), IA 2111/2024 IN C.P. (I.B) No. 892/MB/2022
Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited, C.P. (I.B) No. 444/MB/2020
Canara Bank V/s Mr. Bhavesh Mansukhbhai Rathod, The Interim Resolution Professional & Ors., C.P.(IB) No. 383/MB/2023
Supreme Court
IBC | Once Resolution Plan Approved, Dues Not Part Of It Get Extinguished : Supreme Court Rejects Post-Resolution Income Tax Demand
Case Title: Vaibhav Goel & Anr. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 330
The Supreme Court today (March 20) declined a claim raised by the Income Tax Department to include a tax demand in a Resolution Plan after it was approved by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Citing the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657, which held that all claims not included in the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval
No S.138 NI Act Case Against Ex-Director Of Company When Cause Of Action Arose After IBC Moratorium : Supreme Court
Case Title: VISHNOO MITTAL VERSUS M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314
The Supreme Court held that if the cause of action for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has arisen after the declaration of moratorium with respect to the company as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), then the proceedings under S.138 NI Act cannot be continued against the ex-director of the company.
NCLAT
Application For CIRP Not Maintainable If Default Occurred During Protected Period U/S 10A Of IBC
Case Title: Manish Mukim v. Ms. Rakhi and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 617 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), disposed of an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Kolkata Bench-II regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Consideration And Subsequent Rejection Of Resolution Plan By Committee Of Creditors Submitted After Due Date Cannot Be Questioned: NCLAT
Case Title: Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited The Ruby Versus Ashdan Properties Private Limited and Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1566 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5973, 6380 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the consideration and subsequent rejection of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors submitted after the due date cannot be questioned.
IBC Only Overrides Another Statue When There Is A Clear And Direct Conflict: NCLAT
Case Title: Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. V Chief Engineer (Commercial), Ajmer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1411 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5124, 5125, 5126, 7549 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member (Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member (Technical) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member (Technical) dismissed appeal filed against the impugned order of NCLT, Jaipur allowing Respondent to recover Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) from Appellant for periods prior to the admission of the Company in Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP).
Adjudicating Authority Cannot Direct Committee Of Creditors To Consider Expression Of Interest Submitted After Due Date: NCLAT
Case Title: PTC Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Munjal, RP of Nipman Fasteners Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 444 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has decided not to accept Expressions of Interest (EoI) submitted after the due date, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct fresh consideration of such EoI by the CoC.
Successful Resolution Applicant Can Be Directed To Make Upfront Payment To Dissenting Financial Creditors If Resolution Plan Includes Such Provision: NCLAT
Case Title:Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia Successful Resolution Applicant of MBL Infrastructure Ltd Versus IDBI Bank Limited and Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 198 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Successful Resolution Applicant(SRA) can be directed to make an upfront payment to the dissenting financial creditors under the Resolution Plan when there is a clause in the Plan itself providing for such payment.
After Submission Of Final Revised Resolution Plan Within Stipulated Time Frame, Resolution Applicant Cannot Be Permitted To Modify It: NCLAT
Case Title: M/s. Findoc Finvest Private Limited Registered Office Versus Mr. Surendera Raj Gang and Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.249 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that After submission of the final revised Resolution Plan within the stipulated timeframe, the Resolution Applicant cannot be permitted to modify it.
While Deciding Application U/S 7 Of IBC, Adjudicating Authority Is Not Required To Interfere With Terms Of Contract Between Parties: NCLAT
Case Title:Mrs. Madhubala Chauhan Suspended director of Karni Developers & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 604 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that while dealing with an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority is expected to interfere with the terms of the contract entered into between the concerned parties. All that is required to be seen is whether the debt and default is proven without adjudicating on whether the rate of interest was unreasonable or inflated.
Resolution Plan Can Be Approved Beyond 330-Day Time Limit If There Are Valid Grounds For Extension: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. v. Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 187 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench-II regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
CoC Cannot Remit Approved Resolution Plan Post-Submission To Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT
Case Title: State Bank of India vs. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 62 of 2025 & I.A. No. 245 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that once a resolution plan has been approved by the CoC and submitted to the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC cannot seek remit it back to the CoC for fresh consideration.
Adjudicating Authority Can Extend Time For Payment Of Sale Consideration Beyond 90 Days U/S 35 Of IBC Read With Rule 11 Of NCLT Rules: NCLAT
Case Title: Rajabhau Shinde Versus S.M. Electric Works Through Shri. Sunil Madhukar Saraf & Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 826 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2989 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the 90-day period for payment of sale consideration under Schedule 1, Clause 1(12) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016, is mandatory and can only be extended by the Adjudicating Authority, not the Liquidator.
NCLAT Dismisses Senior Advocate's Plea Over Non-Payment Of Over ₹6 Crore In Fees By Company, Says Pre-Existing Dispute Bars Initiation Of CIRP
Case Title: Debarata Ray Choudhuri v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1985 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from the final order by the NCLT New Delhi Bench-IV regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Allottee Cannot Be Considered Financial Creditor When Allotted Unit Is Cancelled At Their Request: NCLAT
Case Title: Gaurav Jindal Versus Debashish Nanda, RP Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2076 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7357 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an allottee of a unit cannot be considered a financial creditor if the allotted unit was canceled at their request and the loan taken to purchase the flat was settled with the lending bank.
Delivery Of Demand Notice To Last Known Address Of Personal Guarantor Shall Be Deemed Valid Service U/S 95(4) Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Paresh Rastogi and Ors. Versus M/Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that delivery of a demand notice to the last known address of the personal guarantor, as stipulated in the deed of guarantee, shall be deemed valid service for the purposes of Section 95(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted When Debt Is Discharged By Corporate Debtor After Receipt Of Demand Notice: NCLAT
Case Title: Mr. Pankaj Kalra (Suspended director of Essar Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Limited) Vs Greeka Greens Solution (India) Limited and Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1783 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be initiated if the debt in question has been discharged and settled between the parties after the issuance of demand notice under section 8 of the Code.
Lease Hold Rights Existing In Favor Of Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Terminated During Moratorium Period U/S 14 Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Divyesh Desai RP of GPT Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Bhuj
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1103 of 2024 & I.A. No.3974 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an order terminating the lease cannot be passed during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), particularly when leasehold rights are assets of the corporate debtor which were in its possession.
Once CoC And Adjudicating Authority Approve Resolution Plan, Payment Terms Are Final: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Through Its Manager (Institution) v. Sandeep Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 320 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal filed by the Greater Noida Development Authority (GNIDA). The appellant challenged the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor, which had already been finalized. The tribunal emphasized that once the resolution plan had been approved by the CoC and adjudicating authority, the payment terms became final.
Reflection Of Genuine Pre Existing Dispute From Correspondences Between Parties Is Sufficient To Reject Application U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Dilipkumar Lokooram Arora, (Member of Suspended Board of Directors) Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Versus KTR Management Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2183 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a pre-existing dispute regarding the claim exists between the parties, as clearly reflected in their correspondence, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), must be rejected.
Secured Creditor's Security Interest Becomes Part Of Liquidation Estate If Amount As Stipulated Under Regulation 21A(2) Is Not Deposited Within 90 days: NCLAT
Case Title: Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Verma Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 592 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3167 of 2024 & 1166 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that If a secured creditor who has chosen to realize its security interest under Section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) fails to deposit the amount as stipulated under Regulation 21A(2) of the Liquidation Regulations within 90 days from the liquidation commencement date, the security shall become part of the liquidation estate.
NCLAT Clarifies Computation Of Limitation Under Section 61 Of IBC When Last Day Falls On A Holiday
Case Title: Atul Babulal Prajapati & Anr. (Suspended Director and Promoter of WSH Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt & Ors
Case Number: I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhusan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that for computing the 30 days' period under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), if the last day expires on a day when the office of the NCLAT is closed, that day and any succeeding day on which the NCLAT remains closed shall also be excluded.
Operational Creditor Can Only Trigger CIRP Process When There Is An Undisputed Debt And Default In Payment: NCLAT
Case Title: Rajendra Bisht, Erstwhile promoter of M/s Ambassador Logistics Pvt Ltd. V M/s Satkar Logistics Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 285 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member (Technical) dismissed appeal filed by the operational creditors due to the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the operational creditor and corporate debtor.
Rights Of Auction Purchaser Are Crystallized Upon Issuance Of Sale Certificate: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title: Ketan C Bagadia V Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, Liquidator of Nexus Electro Steel Ltd. Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Nexus Electro Steel Ld.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins)No.36/2025 (IA Nos. 127 & 128/2025)
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai comprising of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member (Technical) dismissed an appeal filed by the former director of the corporate debtor (Nexus Electro Steel Ltd.) challenging the impugned order of NCLT, Chennai and the auction process being undertaken by the liquidator.
Penalties U/S 65 Of IBC Can Be Imposed Against Those Who Fraudulently Initiate Insolvency Process: NCLAT
Case Title: Rakesh Arora & Anr. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Rockman Advertising & Marketing (India) Ltd. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1606 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5859 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical) disposed an appeal filed by a majority shareholder of the corporate debtor stating that the Section 7 application filed by financial creditors was fraudulently filed in collusion with the corporate debtors' promoters.
For Initiating Proceedings U/S 7 Of IBC, Existence Of Financial Debt And Corresponding Default Is A Sine Qua Non: NCLAT
Case Title: M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited V. State Bank of India
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 974 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed a Section 7 petition filed by the Appellant (M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited) and upholding the decision of Adjudicating authority, stating that the petition was filed with malicious intent.
NCLT
Outgoing Liquidator Entitled To Minimum Fee Of Rs. 2 Lakh As Per IBBI Regulations: NCLT Kochi
Case Title: Mr. Padmakumar K. C., Liquidator of M/s. Asten Realtors Private Limited vs. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited & Anr.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi bench comprising Shri. Vinay Goyal (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that if the liquidator is replaced, he is entitled to a minimum fee of Rs. 2 lakh as per Schedule II of of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 for the tenure he has worked.
Corporate Revival Under IBC Should Not Come At Cost Of Public Welfare Projects: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Aegis Resolution Service Private Limited, Resolution Professional of Radius & Deserve Land Developers Private Limited V. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA)
Case Number: IA 2111/2024 IN C.P. (I.B) No. 892/MB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai comprising of Ms. Reeta Kohli, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Hon'ble Member (Technical) dismissed an application filed by Aegis Resolution Services Private Limited acting as the Resolution Professional (RP) for Radius and Deserve Land Developers Private Limited. The application was filed against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority for seeking declaration of ownership and possession of the Corporate Debtor's property.
Information To The NeSL/Information Utility Is Not Mandatory For Ascertainment Of Default: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited
Case Number: C.P. (I.B) No. 444/MB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Ms. Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Member (Technical) admitted the Section 7 application filed by Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd on seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited due to default in payment of interest.
Order Admitting CIRP Cannot Be Recalled In Absence Of Fraud Or Misrepresentation: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Canara Bank V/s Mr. Bhavesh Mansukhbhai Rathod, The Interim Resolution Professional & Ors.
Case Number: C.P.(IB) No. 383/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai comprising of Justice V.G. Bisht (Member (Judicial) and Prabhat Kumar (Member (Technical) partly allowed an interim application filed by Canara Bank in relation to the CIRP of Carnival Techno Park Pt. Ltd (CTPPL). The Tribunal rejected Canara Bank's plea to recall CIRP admission but allowed the forensic audit to investigate the legitimacy of RCFL claim and its classification as secured financial debt.
Nona Lifestyle Moves NCLT To Seek Initiation Of CIRP Against Zomato Over Alleged Non-Payment Of Dues
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (Judicial Member) and Reena Sinha Puri (Technical Member) today heard a petition filed by Nona Lifestyle, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Zomato for alleged non-payment of dues of Rs. 1,64,83,194.