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.

NCLAT

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.

NCLT

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.