IBC | Financial Creditor Can Submit Claim Even If There Is No Default Of Debt : Supreme Court

HIGH COURT

Delisting Regulations Of SEBI Not Applicable To Delisting Of Equity Shares Under Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Harsh Mehta Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4844 OF 2024

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices M.S.Sonak and Jitendra Jain has held that Delisting Regulations framed by the SEBI would not be applicable to the delisting of shares of the company in pursuance of the approval of a Resolution Plan under section 31 of the code.

NCLAT

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code Does Not Override Public Body's Statutory Authority To Regulate Its Properties: NCLAT

Case Title: Prabhat Jain, Liquidator of Narmada Cereal Pvt. Ltd. vs MP Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 697 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2322 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr Indevar Pandey (Member) held a liquidator cannot not create sub-leases over public land without adhering to the statutory requirements. It was further held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot override a public body's statutory authority to regulate its properties.

Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted For Invoices Covered By Prohibited Period U/S 10A Of Code: NCLAT

Case Title: Decor Paper Mills Ltd. Versus Mahashakti Plasto Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2022 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7591 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has affirmed that application under section 9 of the code cannot be admitted for the invoices covered by prohibited period under section 10A of the code.

Pre-CIRP Dues Cannot Be Recovered After Admission Of Corporate Debtor Into Insolvency: NCLAT

Case Title: Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd. Versus Mr. Summit Binani and Anr.

Case Number: TA (AT) NO. 174/2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1011/2020)

The NCLAT Chennai bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that pre-CIRP dues cannot be recovered once the corporate debtor is admitted into insolvency due to moratorium under section 14 of the code. Any amount due to the corporate debtor can be recovered by filing claims before the IRP/RP as the case may be.

Resolution Professional Cannot Be Faulted To Revise Plans Multiple Times As Per Instructions Of CoC: NCLAT

Case Title: Fintech Restructuring LLP M/s Fairdeal Multifilament Private Limited and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1823 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that adverse remarks cannot be passed by the Adjudicating Authority against the RP for performing his duties in accordance with the commercial wisdom of the CoC. In this case, the Resolution Plans were revised multiple times for which the Adjudicating Authority found the RP responsible.

Declaration Of Loan Account/ Debt As NPA Can Be Considered As Date Of Default To File Petition U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Bikram Bhadur Vs. Union Bank of India & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1289 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that upon declaration of the loan account/ debt as NPA that date can be reckoned as the date of default to enable the Financial Creditor to initiate action under Section 7 of the Code.

Approval Of Resolution Plan By CoC Cannot Be Interfered With Unless Section 30(2) Of Code Is Breached: NCLAT

Case Title: Yogeshkumar Jashwantilal Thakkar and Anr. Versus George Samuel, Resolution Professional of Jason Dekor Private Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1417 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that approval of Resolution Plan by the Committee Of Creditors (CoC) cannot be interfered with unless it is violative of section 30(2) of the Code.

Section 43 Of IBC Cannot Be Attracted When No Transaction Was Made By Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title: Commercial Tax Department Versus Mr. Mangesh Vitthal Kekre and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 232 of 2024 & I.A. No. 737, 783 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that section 43 of the code can be attracted only when the transaction in question is made by the corporate debtor and not when it is made by the third party in pursuance of a statutory demand.

Raising Money Through Optional Convertible Debentures Can Be Considered As Financial Debt U/S 5(8): NCLAT

Case Title: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited Versus Waaree Energies Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1380 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that raising money by issuance of convertible debentures with an option to be later converted into equity shares can be classified as a financial debt if a default is committed by the corporate debtor.

Security Interest Shall Stand Relinquished If Liquidation Costs Is Not Paid As Per R. 21A(3) Of Liquidation Regulations: NCLAT

Case Title: Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. Vs. Varsha Bagri, Liquidator of Bharat NRE Coke Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 650 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2325 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that if the secured creditor fails to pay the liquidation costs within 90 days after its intention to realise the security interest, the security interest shall stand relinquished under Regulation 21A(3) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016.

Amount Seized By Income Tax Department And Adjusted Against Demand Prior To Initiation Of CIRP Is Not Asset Of CD: NCLAT

Case Title: Harish Chander Arora Liquidator of Rathi Super Steel Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, & Anr.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 306 of 2024 & I.A. No. 898, 8327 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) Has held that an amount seized by the Income Department and adjusted against demand prior to initiation of the CIRP cannot be considered as assets of the corporate debtor.

Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Cannot Be Barred For Default Committed Prior To S.10A Period: NCLAT

Case Title: Mobile Constructions Private Limited Versus Apple Land Development Private Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 756 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra( Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor prior to Section 10A period, any default committed during the Section 10A period cannot be held to bar the application which is filed on the basis of default prior to Section 10A and subsequent to Section 10A period.

Secured Creditor Is Liable To Pay Liquidator's Fees Under Rule 21A Of Liquidation Regulations If Option U/S 52 Of IBC Is Exercised: NCLAT

Case Title: Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. Versus Mr. Jagdish Kumar Parulkar

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2023 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7595 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra( Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the fee of the liquidator has to be paid within 90 days from the liquidation commencement date as provided under Regulation 21A of the Liquidation Regulations if the secured creditor opts to realise its security interest under section 52 of the code.

Deposit In Pursuance Of One Time Settlement Proposal Remains Corporate Debtor's Asset If Settlement Fails: NCLAT

Case Title: Bank of India Rep. Versus Mr. Naren Sheth

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 533 of 2021

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that the amount deposited with the bank by the corporate debtor in pursuance of an One Time Proposal to show bonafides will remain assets of the corporate debtor and can be taken into custody by the RP under section 18 of the code when the said proposal is not materialised.

NCLT Can Allow Date Of Default To Be Amended In CIRP Proceedings: NCLAT

Case Title: Puneet P. Bhatia vs. ASERC (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 139 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the NCLT is empowered to allow the parties to amend the pleadings before the final orders in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings are passed. In other words, the Tribunal has discretion to amend the default date after the CIRP petition is filed.

Disbursement Of Non Fund-Based Facilities Cannot Be Refused By Lenders When Resolution Plan Contains Clause For Disbursement: NCLAT

Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jyoti Structures Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1962 & 1963 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7303, 7304 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that Non Fund Based facilities cannot be refused to be disbursed when the approved Resolution Plan contains a clause for their disbursement.

Pendency Of Proceedings Before NCLT For Approval Of Scheme Of Arrangement Does Not Preclude Financial Creditor From Filing Petition U/S 7: NCLAT

Case Title:Sunil Kumar Sharma Versus ICICI Bank Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1158 – 1162 of 2024 & IA Nos.4145-4159, 4941, 5550 & 5554 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the pendency of proceedings before the NCLT for approval of the scheme of arrangement does not preclude the Financial Creditor to proceed with Section 7 application. The tribunal also held that direction of RBI under Section 35AA of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for initiation of insolvency cannot be disregarded/ ignored while determining application under Section 7 of IBC.

Copy Of Other Prospective Resolution Applicants' Plans Cannot Be Shared When Suspended Management Is Also A Resolution Applicant: NCLAT

Case Title: Yashdeep Sharma Suspended Director Versus Tara Chand Meenia, Resolution Professional and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1906

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that copy of the Resolution Plans submitted by other Prospective Resolution Applicants cannot be shared in advance with the suspended management of the corporate debtor when the suspended management is also a Resolution Applicant.

CIRP Can't Be Extended Beyond 330 Days U/S. 12(3) Of IBC Absence Of “Exceptional Circumstances”: NCLAT

Case Title: Sibanarayan Chhotray vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 887 of 2024 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2246 of 2024

The NCLAT bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has observed that the maximum timeline prescribed under Section 12(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is 330 days. While this period is directory (not mandatory), an extension beyond 330 days is permissible only in “exceptional circumstances”, where a short time is required to complete the CIRP. The Tribunal held that the period sought to be excluded was 252 days, which is huge, hence the request for exclusion is liable to be turned down as the Appellant failed to show requisite “exceptional circumstances”.

Non-Admission Of Claim By Resolution Professional Cannot Be Challenged First Time In Appeal Before Appellate Tribunal: NCLAT

Case Title: State Tax Officer Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 248 of 2020

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that non admission of claim in the Resolution Plan by the Resolution Plan if not challenged before the Adjudicating Authority cannot be challenged in the appeal before the NCLAT.

Date Of Default In Case Of Personal Guarantor Depends On Terms Of Contract Of Guarantee: NCLAT

Case Title: Mavjibhai Nagarbhai Patel Versus State Bank of India and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1702 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the liability of a borrower and guarantor is co-extensive but the liability of a Guarantor stems from the contract of guarantee and therefore the date of default in the case of the guarantor depends on the terms of contract of guarantee.

Resolution Plan Approved By CoC Binds All Stakeholders Including Dissenting Financial Creditor: NCLAT

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

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 729 of 2020

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Resolution Plan which is approved in commercial wisdom of the CoC binds all stakeholders including the dissenting financial creditor. The commercial wisdom of the CoC approving the Resolution Plan is binding on all.

No Claim Survives When Unit Holder Is Handed Over Possession And Conveyance Deed Has Been Executed: NCLAT

Case Title: Harpal Singh Chawla (Suspended Director of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Vivek Khanna & Ors.

Case Number: Interlocutory Application No.7853 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2002 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when a unit holder is handed over possession and a Conveyance Deed has also been executed, no claim survives of such unit holders. Whether a claim filed by a Financial Creditor in a class, deserves admission, is a question, which need to be first looked into by the RP as per the statutory regulations governing the collation and verification of the claim.
Decree Holder Is “Financial Creditor” Under IBC, Limitation For Filing Section 7 Petition Is Extendable On Acknowledgment Of Debt: NCLAT

Case Title: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. M/s ADTV Communications Private Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 849 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2894, 2895 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial member) and Arun Baroka (Technical member) has held that a decree holder falls within the definition of "Financial Creditor" under Section 5(7) and Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) if the decree is based on a financial debt. The Tribunal observed that the cause of action for initiating proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC arises when the debt is acknowledged by the debtor. The Tribunal noted that the Petition filed by the Appellant was within the limitation period as the Respondent had acknowledged the debt, extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent.
Status Report Submitted In Criminal Proceeding Can Have No Bearing While Deciding Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1422 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that Status Report submitted in a criminal proceeding regarding allegations of fraud and forgery can have no bearing while deciding Section 7 Application. The said Status Report is not an evidence on which it can be pronounced that threshold of 100 allottees was not complete in filing of Section 7 Application.
Application U/S 12A Of IBC Can Be Withdrawn By Resolution Professional Before It Is Heard Or Allowed: NCLAT

Case Title: Mehul Patel (Member of Suspended Board of Anupam Port Cranes Corporation Ltd.) Vs. Nandish S. Vin & Anr

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2191 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that CIRP withdrawal application can be withdrawn by Resolution Professional before the application is heard and allowed.

Ghaziabad Development Authority Abused Dominant Position By Imposing Unfair Terms On Allottees Of EWS Housing Scheme, NCLAT Imposes 5% Penalty

Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Competition Commission of India

Case Number: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 26 of 2018

Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) filed an appeal, challenging the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order wherein the CCI found that GDA had abused its dominant position in the market for the provision of services related to the development and sale of low-cost residential flats for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) under the Pratap Vihar Residential Housing Scheme. GDA was found to have unilaterally increased the prices of flats and imposed arbitrary and unfair terms on allottees, violating Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act. The CCI imposed a penalty of 5% of GDA's average turnover for the last three years in connection with the relevant market.

NCLAT Sets Aside Admission Of S.7 Application Upon Finding Transaction Was In Nature Of 'Operational Debt'

Case Title: Varun Gupta vs. ISINOX Pvt. Ltd. Through the IRP Mr. Manishkumar R. Patel & Ors.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 430 of 2023 & I.A. No. 1429, 1430, 1431 of 2023 & 2005 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was not maintainable as the transaction in question constituted an 'operational debt' and was not covered under Section 5(8)(e) but was governed by Section 5(20) and Section 21(5) of the Code. The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the admission of petition under section 7 and relegated the Respondents to pursue their remedy under Section 9 of the Code.

Once CoC Approves Resolution Plan Then No Claim Is To Be Entertained: NCLAT

Case Title: Vadilal Industries Ltd. vs. Fanendra Munot & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 748 of 2023

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) have reiterated that once the Committee of Creditor (CoC) has approved the resolution plan, then no claim is to be entertained.

CIRP Withdrawal Cannot Be Allowed Unless Application Is Filed By Applicant Who Initiates Section 7 Application: NCLAT

Case Title: Vidyadhar Sarfare & Anr Versus CS Anagha Anasingharaju & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1733 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that CIRP cannot be withdrawn under section 12A read with Regulation 30A unless application for withdrawal is filed by the applicant who initiated the CIRP.

Non Impleadment Of Owner As Party By Liquidator In Application U/S 19 Of IBC Not Malafide If Ownership Was Uncertain: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that non impleadment of the owner in application under section 19 of the code filed by the liquidator due to the uncertainty over the ownership of the premises cannot be termed malafide.

NBCC To Lead Completion Of Supertech's Stalled Projects, Securing Homebuyers' Rights

In a landmark judgment, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Delhi bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has approved NBCC (India) Ltd.'s proposal to complete 16 incomplete projects of Supertech Limited. NBCC will act as the Project Management Consultant to ensure timely and quality completion of these projects. The judgment advocates for transparency and accountability in the real estate industry and protection of the rights of homebuyers, lenders, and public funds.

NCLT

Decision To Consolidate CIRP Can Be Taken By CoC And Not By Suspended Director Of Corporate Debtors: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Mr. Gajjala Yoganand versus Mr. Birendra Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

Case Number: IA No.373 of 2024 in CP(IB) No.296/7/HDB/2022

The NCLT Hyderabad bench of Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Sri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member) has affirmed that the decision to consolidate, or not, rests with the CoCs, who are not only better equipped to make such determinations but also have a vested interest in the outcome, and whose commercial wisdom is paramount in insolvency matters and beyond judicial review.

Related Party Can't Be Allowed Backdoor Entry Into CoC On Account Of Its Operational Debt: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: M/s Avani Towers Private Limited vs. M/s Energy Properties Private Limited

Case Number: IA(IBC) No. 1299/ (KB)/ 2024 in Company Petition No. (IB)-1711/(KB)/2019

The NCLT, Kolkata bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj has held that once a Financial Creditor had been classified as a “related party”, it could not be allowed to gain entry into Committee of Creditors (CoC) on account of its Operational Debt as it would amount to defeating the legislative intent of keeping related parties out and running of CoC by external creditors. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Private Limited & Ors. to hold that the exclusion referred to in first proviso to Section 21(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) lays emphasis on the relationship existing between the parties and not the debt itself.

Limitation Period For Both Corporate Debtor And Personal Guarantor Will Commence From Same Date: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Vs. Mr. Kanumuru Raghu Rama Krishna Raju

Case Number: CP (IB) No.54/95/HDB/2022

The NCLT Hyderabad bench of Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Sri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member) has held that the Personal Guarantor should be treated on an equal legal footing with the Corporate Debtor, as it is clearly established by the law that the liability of Corporate Debtor and Personal Guarantor are co-extensive in nature. Therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act must be applied consistently to both the Corporate Debtor and the Personal Guarantor. The limitation period for both the parties will commence from the same date.

All Claims Including Subject Matter Of Ongoing Arbitration Proceedings Stand Extinguished After Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title:Embassy Commercial Projects (Whitefield) Private Limited Versus Pankaj Srivastava

Case Number: I.A No. 545/2024 In CP (IB) No.74/BB/2023

The NCLT Bengaluru bench of K. Biswal (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member) has held that all claims including subject matter of ongoing arbitration proceedings will stand extinguished after the approval of the Resolution Plan under section 31 of the Code.

No Proceedings Against Corporate Debtor Can Be Initiated Or Continued Over Claim Which Is Not Part Of Resolution Plan: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Mr. Rajkumar Jhawar and Anr. Vs Mr. Arun Kapoor and Ors.

Case Number: IA No. 3390/2024 In CP (IB) 2517/MB/2018

The NCLT Mumbai bench of Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) and Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) has affirmed that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under subsection (1) of Section 31 of the Code, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on all stakeholders. Thereafter, no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan.

NCLT Hyderabad Approves Resolution Plan For Karvy Data Management Services Limited

Case Title: M/S ALLIED HI-TECH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KARVY DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED

Case Number: I.A. (IBC) (PLAN) NO.24 OF 2024 IN CP (IB) No. 25/7/HDB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad bench of Dr. N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member) has approved the Resolution Plan of Karvy Data Management Services Ltd (KDMSL). It was approved on December 13, 2024. KDMSL, incorporated on 21.04.2008, is a prominent provider of integrated business and knowledge process services. Its clients include UIDAI (Aadhaar Seva Kendras), SEBI (KRA Services) and Protean E-Gov Technologies Limited. Due to operational inefficiencies, market downturns, and external economic reasons, the company experienced financial difficulties, which led to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
No Provision In IBC To Issue Multiple Demand Notices Before Filing Petition U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: M/s. METRO TYRES LIMITED VERSUS M/s. HERO ELECTRIC VEHICLES PVT. LTD

Case Number: C.P. (IB) –397(ND)/2024

The NCLT New Delhi bench of Justice Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that there is no such provision in the IBC, 2016 and in the Regulation made thereunder that allows the Operational Creditor to issue multiple demand notices to the Corporate Debtor.