IBC Weekly Round-Up [18th November To 24th November 2024]

Nominal Index Siti Networks Ltd. vs. Rajiv Suri (INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 31055 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2016 IN SUIT NO. 2295 OF 2002), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 600 M/s Vedic Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shri Sutanu Sinha, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1927 of 2024 K.H. Khan & Anr. Vs. Art Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1116 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1117 of 2024 LAW & KENNETH SAATCHI & SAATCHI PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PATANJALI PARIDHAN PRIVATE LIMITED, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1033 of 2023 Mr. Babu Manoharan Jaikumar Christhurajan V Mr. Umesh Garg & 2 Ors, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.358/2022 Meenakshi and Kushal Goyal Versus Amit Agarwal and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1022 of 2024 Clarion Health Food LLP Versus Goli Vada Pav Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1522 of 2023 Praveen Arya & Ors. Versus Anju Aggarwal (RP of Corporate Debtor ) & Anr, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 40 of 2024 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.45 of 2024 & Interlocutory Application No.140 of 2024 Getz Cables Private Limited Versus State Bank of India and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1953 of 2024 CA Ramasamy Shanmuggam, Liquidator of RLS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.413/2022 Raghavendra Joshi Residing Versus Indian Bank and Anr., I.A. No. 2247/2023 IN C.P. NO. 575(IB)/MB/2022 Bank of India vs. GF Toll Road Private Limited, CP (IB)/83 (MB)/2024 and CP (IB)/120 (MB)/2024 High Court Asset Deposited By Corporate Debtor As Security Before CIRP Commencement Continues To Be Asset Of Corporate Debtor: Bombay High Court Case Title: Siti Networks Ltd. vs. Rajiv Suri (INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 31055 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2016 IN SUIT NO. 2295 OF 2002) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 600 The Bombay High Court bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that monies or any other asset deposited by a corporate debtor in court prior to commencement of CIRP by way of security would continue to be the asset of the corporate debtor. The court observed that the moratorium on the enforcement of a claim for execution of a decree has commenced, and upon failure of the CIRP, the asset would form part of the liquidation estate. As stated in Byju, the asset is intended to be distributed to creditors in proportion to what is owed to them, and one creditor cannot gain an advantage over the others by being paid out, particularly outside of the CIRP or liquidation. NCLAT Interest On Operational Debt Cannot Be Claimed If There Is No Clause In Agreement For Payment Of Interest: NCLAT Case Title: M/s Vedic Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shri Sutanu Sinha Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1927 of 2024 The NLCAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that no interest on principal amount can be claimed if there is no clause to this effect in the agreement executed between the parties. In this case, operational creditor while claiming its operational due also demanded payment of interest since it was an MSME and as per section 16 of the MSME Act, it was entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment. However, the RP rejected this demand and admitted only the principal amount. Development Rights Constitute Property U/S 3(27) Of IBC, Can Be Included In Information Memorandum By RP U/S 29 Of Code: NCLAT Case Title: K.H. Khan & Anr. Vs. Art Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1116 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1117 of 2024 The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) affirmed that development rights are property within the meaning of section 3(27) of the IBC which can be included in the Information Memorandum by Resolution Professional under section 29 of the IBC. The Tribunal further observed that the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to enter into as to whether property included in the IM is asset of the corporate debtor under section 60 of the IBC and for decision of the question, the parties are not required to be relegated to the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction If Genuine Pre-Existing Dispute With Regard To Operational Debt Is Established, Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Must Be Rejected: NCLAT Case Title: LAW & KENNETH SAATCHI & SAATCHI PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PATANJALI PARIDHAN PRIVATE LIMITED Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1033 of 2023 The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) affirmed that a petition under section 9 of the IBC can be rejected if the dispute raised by ...

IBC Weekly Round-Up [18th November To 24th November 2024]

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags