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.

IBC- Resolution Professional Entitled To Take Control Of Corporate Debtor's Rights In Assets Licensed To Third Parties : Supreme Court

Case Title: Victory Iron Works Ltd. v Jitendra Lohia & Anr.

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, has held that a resolution professional is entitled to take control of the rights of a corporate debtor in assets which are licensed to third parties. Such an action of the RP will come within the ambit of Section 25 of IBC. Further, the assets owned by a third-party, but in the possession of the Corporate Debtor held under contractual arrangements, are excluded from the definition of “assets” in Section 18 of IBC, however, the said exclusion does not extend to Section 25 of IBC. Therefore, the Explanation to Section 18 is inapplicable to Section 25 of IBC.

Insolvency Resolution Of Company Will Not Extinguish Director's Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court

Case Title: Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and JB Pardiwala has held that approval of resolution plan of a corporate debtor under the IBC will not extinguish the criminal liability of its erstwhile director under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The company's director cannot seek discharge from N.I. Act proceedings on the ground that creditor’s debt stood settled in the proceedings under IBC.

NCLAT

Shareholders Have No Locus To Challenge The Initiation Of CIRP Against Corporate Debtor: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Nirej Vadakkedathu Paul v Sunstar Hotels and Estates Private Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 142 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that shareholders of Corporate Debtor have no locus to challenge the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Bench has upheld the initiation of CIRP against M/s McDowell Holdings Limited.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Remitting Of Resolution Plan Back To COC For Compliance Of Sec 30(2) IBC

Case Title: Noble Marine Metals Co Wll V Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 653 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has upheld the order of Adjudicating Authority whereby a Resolution Plan was remitted back to the Committee of Creditors for making changes, only to the extent of a clause which provided for mandatory release of the personal guarantee given by the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor. The Bench held that of a Resolution Plan does not satisfy the parameters of Section 30(2)(e) of IBC, then the same can be sent back to CoC for review.

'Assets', Have Proved To Be `Fictitious’/`Fraudulent’, Created In The`Books Of Accounts’, With An Intent To `Defraud’ The ‘Creditors’; NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Mr. Shibu Job Cheeran & Ors. v Mr. Ashok Velamur Seshadri

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 350 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that for an application under Section 66 of IBC to succeed, it must be proved that (i) Directors participated in carrying on business of the Corporate Debtor despite knowing likely insolvency of the Corporate Debtor; and (ii) Business of the Corporate Debtor has been carried out with an intent to defraud the creditors.

Lease Premium & Lease Rent Not Included In Explanation To Section 14(1)(D) Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Agarwal v New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 622 of 2022.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that Explanation to Section 14(1)(d) of IBC does not include lease premium or lease rent amount.

NCLT Cannot Decide Controversies Relating To Attachment Of Property Under Benami Prohibition Act: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Mr. P. Eswaramoorthy v The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition)

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 188 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that NCLT is not the proper Fora to determine the controversies revolving around the Attachment of Property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (“PBPT Act”). The Section 60(5) of IBC does not confer jurisdiction upon NCLT to determine any questions relating to the Corporate Debtor and no remedy can be sought under the same with regards to the PBPT Act. Further, Moratorium imposed under Section 14 of IBC does not affect a Provisional Attachment Order issued under the PBPT Act.

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.

Financial Creditor Who Does Not Attend Proceedings, Cannot Claim That Cirp Has Been Wrongly Conducted: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Consolidated Finvest & Holdings Ltd. v Subhash Kumar Kundra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 312 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that a Financial Creditor who does not attend the CIRP proceeding, cannot be heard in saying that CIRP has wrongly been conducted. The Bench has also upheld the imposition of Rs. 10 Lakhs cost by the Adjudicating Authority on the Financial Creditor for filing frivolous application.

GOOGLE V CCI: NCLAT Delhi Upholds Imposition Of Rs. 1337.76 Crores Penalty On Google, For Abuse Of Dominant Position In Android Market

Case Title: Google LLC & Anr. v Competition Commission of India

Case No.: Competition Appeal (AT) (ND) No.01 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has dismissed Google’s appeal against CCI order dated 20.10.2022, wherein the Competition Commission of India had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1337.76 Crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in denial of market access for competing search apps. The Bench observed that the CCI’s investigation into Google's conduct was not violative of principles of natural justice. Certain directions by the CCI have been set aside by the NCLAT.

NCLT

NCLT Mumbai Initiates Insolvency Proceedings Against Reliance Broadcast Network Limited

Case Title: IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited V. Reliance Broadcast Network Limited

Case No.: C.P. 310 OF 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’), Mumbai bench comprising of Mr. Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Ms. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Reliance Broadcast Network Limited [“Corporate Debtor”]. Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra has been appointed as the interim Resolution Professional.

Excessive Amount Mistakenly Paid Can’t Be Operational Debt, It’s Quasi Contract: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. Sandvik Mining & Construction Tools AB v M/s TA Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP(IB) No. 278/09/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has held that if an Operational Creditor mistakenly pays excess sum to the Corporate Debtor, then the excess amount would not be categorized as an operational debt, if the claim is entirely based on a Quasi Contract and not on concerned purchase orders and commercial invoices in respect to supply of goods and services.

NCLT Mumbai Allows Withdrawal Of CIRP Against Meta Arch Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Ardex Endura (India) Private Limited v Meta Arch Private Limited

Case No.: CP(IB)/3546/(MB)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has permitted withdrawal of CIRP against Meta Arch Private Limited. Meta Arch Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) is engaged in real estate development and has projects across Kenya, Pune, Mumbai, Dubai et al.

No Attachment Of Property Under PMLA Once Liquidation Commences: NCLT Jaipur

Case Title: M/s Packwell (India) Ltd. v M/s Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd

Case No.: CP No. (IB)- 601/ND/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Jaipur Bench, comprising of Shri Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial Member) and Shri Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (Technical Member), has held that PMLA would cease to have the power to attach the property of the Corporate Debtor, when the order of the Liquidation has already been passed.

NCLT Delhi Approves Resolution Plan For Boulevard Projects Private Limited

Case Title: SGM Webtech Private Limited V. Boulevard Projects Private Limited

Case No: CP (IB) No.967(PB)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Shri Avinash K. Srivastava (Technical Member) has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Max Estates Limited for Boulevard Projects Private Limited which was developing a high-end real estate project Delhi One. The Resolution Plan is valued at ₹1118,38,93,145/-.

NCLT Delhi Approves Resolution Plan Of Suraksha Realty & Lakshdeep Investments & Finance For Jaypee Infratech LTD.

Case Title: IDBI Bank Limited v Jaypee Infratech Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-77(ALD)/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Special Bench (New Delhi), comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Consortium of M/s. Suraksha Realty Ltd. and M/s. Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Jaypee Infratech Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) is an infrastructure development company which is engaged in the development and maintenance of the Yamuna Expressway, on a build-transfer-operate basis, as well as development of five integrated townships along the Expressway.

Debt Arising Out Of Different Work Orders Can Be Clubbed To Meet Minimum Threshold Of Rs. 1 Crore: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: A J Buildcon Private Limited v Patel Engineering Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.627/MB-IV/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has reiterated that debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore under IBC. The Bench has initiated CIRP against Patel Engineering Ltd. and appointed Ms. Neeraja Kartik as the Interim Resolution Professional.

No Bar On Sale Of Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern After First Auction, Permission Of AA not required: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Mr. Surinder Manchanda v Nolsar International Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-1031(ND)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has held that there is no bar on the sale of Corporate Debtor as a going concern even after the first auction has taken place and the Liquidator is not obliged to seek permission of Adjudicating Authority for conducting such sale.

When Financial Creditors Have Not Been Paid In Full, Operational Creditors Cannot Claim A Higher Amount: NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Noble Resource International Pvt. Ltd. v Sona Alloys Pvt. Ltd.,

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 586 of 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Deepti Mukesh (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), has held that when Financial Creditors have not been paid in full in the Resolution Plan, the Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount under the same. The Bench observed that a conjoint reading of Section 30 and Section 53 of IBC shows that the Financial Creditors are placed at a higher priority than Operational Creditors. The Secured Financial Creditors are covered by Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the Unsecured Financial Creditors are covered by Section 53(1)(d). The Operational Creditors are to be considered thereafter having lower priority and are covered by Section 53(1)(f).

Petition U/S 9 IBC Can Only Be Filed After Expiry Of 10 Day Period Under Section 8(2) IBC: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Aypols Polymers Private Limited Vs Suvarna Fibrotech Pvt Ltd

Case No.: CP (IB) No.635/MB-IV/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) , Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that Petition under Section 9 of IBC can only be filed after expiry of the 10 days period mentioned under Section 8 (2) of IBC. The Tribunal observed that the proof of service of Demand Notice was not annexed to the petition and it was unclear how was the Demand Notice served. The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Debtor has 10 days to respond to the Demand Notice under Section 8(2) of IBC. A petition under Section 9 of IBC can only be filed after expiry of 10 days provided under Section 8(2). Since the petition was filed on the very next day on which the Demand Notice was sent, the petition was not in accordance with Section 9(1) of IBC.

Insufficiency Of Stamp On Loan Documents Not Relevant For Admissibility Of Section 7 Petition: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs M/s Hybro Foods Private Limited

Case No.: C.P.(IB) No. 295 of 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has reiterated that the insufficiency in the stamping of the loan documents is not a relevant ground for dismissing a petition under Section 7 of IBC. The thing which is to be verified is that whether the debt is bona fide disputed and whether the said defence is a substantial one.

Claims Not Part Of The Resolution Plan Shall Extinguish Only After Resolution Plan Approval: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri. Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has reiterated that all claims not forming part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished only after the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority.

Dissenting Secured Creditor Can't Be Treated Higher Than Other Creditors U/S 53 Just Because They Enjoy Security Interest: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: Trimurti Associates Private Limited Vs BKM Industries Limited

Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 2078/KB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal(“NCLT”), Kolkata Bench, comprising of Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri. Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has reiterated that just because a creditor enjoys security interest, it cannot be treated higher than other creditors who have financed the Corporate Debtor. The other creditors don’t not enjoy the protection of a security interest and thus run the risk of not getting paid their dues from realization of security. If such creditors are treated differently, then all secured creditors would dissent in the CoC. This will not lead to maximization of value of the Corporate Debtor and will defeat the very purpose of resolution under IBC.

NCLT Ahmedabad & Indore Benches Re-Constituted W.E.F 20th March 2023, Matters To Be Heard Through VC

File No.: 10/03/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad and Indore Benches, have been re-constituted vide a Circular dated 15.03.2023 issued by NCLT. Shri M.B. Gosavi (Judicial Member) is demitting office on 18.03.2023 on completion of his tenure. Therefore, the NCLT Ahmedabad and NCLT Indore Bench are being re-constituted.

NCLT Ahmedabad

NCLT Ahmedabad Court Room No. I (Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday) (First Half)

1. Shri Praveen Gupta (Judicial Member)
2. Shri K.K. Singh (Technical Member)

NCLT Ahmedabad Court Room No. II (Second Half)

1. Shri Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member)

NCLT Indore

NCLT Indore Bench (Thursday & Friday) (Second Half)

1. Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member)
2. Shri K.K. Singh (Technical Member)

The matters shall be heard through Video Conference (VC).

Dispute In The Quantum Of Debt Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Insolvency Petition: NCLT Delhi Reiterates

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri P.S.N. Prasad (Judicial member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), has reiterated that dispute over quantum of debt cannot be a ground for rejection of insolvency petition. The tribunal admitted the petition after observing that the petition very well qualifies the 1 Crore threshold limit for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

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.

HIGH COURT

Whether Proceedings Under NI Act Become Infructuous If Creditor Opts IBC?: Delhi High Court Issues Notice

Case Title: Ashwani Arya &Anr. vs. Rajat Mitra Proprietor M/s. Caldron Graphics

Case No.: CRL MC No. 1376/2023

The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh, has issued notice in the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, wherein quashing of summons issued in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been sought by the Director of Corporate Debtor, which is under liquidation. The issue before the Court is whether proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act become infructuous if the Creditor subsequently avails remedy under IBC in view of the same debt and default and the Corporate Debtor goes under liquidation.

IBBI

IBBI Revises Format For Serving Copy Of Application To Board

Circular No. IBBI/LAD/58/2023

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has issued a Circular dated 04.03.2023, revising the format in which a copy of petition under IBC is to be served to IBBI by the Applicant, before filing of such application for initiation of CIRP. The IBBI has revised format for serving a copy of the application, to ensure filing of authentic information and enabling sharing of information with IU efficiently. The Revised Format requires the Applicant to mention its personal details, details of the application and also of the proposed Insolvency Professional. A step-by-step guide for submission of the application has also been provided alongwith the Circular. Further, on submission of the application online, the applicant shall get an acknowledgment. The provisions of the Circular supersede IBBI’s Circular No. IBBI/IU/35/2020 dated 29.10.2020.