AA Obliged To Direct For Liquidation Only If COC’S Decision To Liquidate Is In Accordance With IBC: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Hero Fincorp Limited v M/s Hema Automotive Private Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1540 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority’s obligation to direct for liquidation shall arise only when the CoC’s decision to liquidate is in accordance with IBC. The CoC resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor after preparation of the Information Memorandum and before the period for inviting Expression of Interest could expire. The NCLAT Bench upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s decision to reject the liquidation application.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Removal Of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure’s Resolution Professional By AA

Case Title: Srigopal Choudary v SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1443 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s decision to remove the Resolution Professional of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. The Bench has held that an authority empowered to appoint also has the right to remove/dismiss. Further, if the Resolution Professional is not convening the meeting of CoC for his replacement, then Adjudicating Authority can invoke its inherent jurisdiction and replace the Resolution Professional.

Google Play Store Dispute: NCLAT Delhi Directs Google To Deposit 10% Of Penalty Amount

Case Title: Alphabet Inc. & Ors. v Competition Commission of India & Ors.

Case No.: Competition App. (AT) No. 4 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has admitted Google’s appeal against CCI order dated 25.10.2022 subject to deposit of 10% of penalty amount of Rs. 936.44 Crores. The Bench has declined to grant any interim relief. The matter is next listed on 17.04.2023.

On 25.10.2022, the CCI Bench by invoking its powers under Section 27 of the Competition Act, had imposed monetary penalty of Rs. 936.44 Crore on Google for abusing its dominant position with respect to its Play Store policies, apart from issuing a cease-and-desist order. The Commission had also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline. In January 2023, Google filed an appeal before the NCLAT, challenging the Order passed by CCI imposing a penalty of Rs. 936.44 Crore on Google.

“No Concept Of Automatic Restoration Of Any Water Connection”: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation v Bhadrashree Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that water connection cannot be automatically restored to a Successful Resolution Applicant. A proper application has to be made seeking restoration of water connection.

“We only observe that there is no concept of automatic restoration of any water connection and a proper application is required to be made following the procedure and only benefit Successful Resolution Applicant can claim is extinguishment of the dues which are not part of the Resolution Plan.”

NCLT

NCLT Mumbai Approves Adani Goodhome’s Resolution Plan For Radius Estates & Developers

Case Title: Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. v Radius Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB) No: 1390 of 2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Adani Goodhomes Pvt. Ltd. for Radius Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Radius Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) entered into a joint venture as co-developer with the MIG (Bandra) Realtors and Builders Pvt. Ltd., for redevelopment of a land situated at Bandra (East) Mumbai (“Project”). The Project included construction of residential flats/units for: (i) rehabilitation of the members of the Middle-Income Group Co-operative Housing Society; and (ii) as part of the free-sale component.

HIGH COURT

No Ipso Facto Absolvement Of Guarantor’s Liability Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Narendra Singh Panwar v Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 26355 of 2022

The High Court of Allahabad Bench comprising of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit, has held that approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC, does not ipso facto absolve the surety/guarantor of the Corporate Debtor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract of guarantee. To what extent, the liability of a guarantor can be pressed into service would depend on the terms of the guarantee/contract itself.