SUPREME COURT

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"

NCLAT

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.”

NCLT

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.