Registry Remained Open, Summer Vacation Not Excluded From Computation Of Limitation: NCLAT Delhi

Case title: M K Overseas Export Pvt. Ltd. v Sapan Mohan Garg

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1040 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the duration of summer vacation of NCLAT cannot be excluded from computation of limitation period, since filing facility was not discontinued by the Registry and urgent matters were also being heard twice a week by the NCLAT.

“In so far as the submission of the applicant that there was summer vacation, therefore, appeal could not be filed. There is already notification issued by the Registry that filing of the appeal is not precluded during summer vacation and Court also use to convene twice in a week to consider urgent matters. Therefore that submission has also no legs to stand.”

NCLAT Directs Indexing Of All Interim Applications In The Main Volume

Ref: F. No. 10/37/2018-Estt./NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has issued a notice dated 04.10.2023, directing the Advocates/Authorised Representatives/Parties-in-Person to index all Interim Applications (“IA”) in the main volume of the Appeal/application filed before the NCLAT. The indexing of the IAs is to be done after Memo of Parties and Synopsis, but before the Pleadings.

“In compliance of the order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.545 of 2023 and as directed by the Competent Authority, henceforth Ld. Advocates/Authorised Representatives / Parties-in-Person are directed to index all the IAs (whatever it may be) in the main volume after Memo of Parties and Synopsis but before the pleadings.”

NCLAT New Delhi: Objective Of IBC Is To Revive Corporate Debtor And Liquidation Is The Last Resort

Case Title: Gayatri Polyrub Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anil Kohli & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 650 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the objective of IBC is to revive the Corporate Debtor and Liquidation as the last resort in a well-settled law. The Bench gave an opportunity to the CoC to consider the Revised Offer and take the decision to meet the ends of justice and extend the CIRP for a period of 60 days.

NCLAT New Delhi: Resolution Plan Cannot Go Back And Forth Making CIRP An Endless Process, Even If NCLT Has Not Approved The Plan

Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd. vs. Jalesh Kumar Grover RP of GPI Textiles Ltd.

Case No.: Company App. (AT) (Ins) No. 799 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that as per the principle established by the Supreme Court in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr., even if the NCLT has not approved a Resolution Plan, it should not lead to a situation where the Plan can go back and forth making the CIRP an indefinite and never-ending process.

NCLAT Chennai: Not Open To NCLT To Reject Withdrawal Application U/S 12A, Where 90% Voting Share Of CoC Exists

Case Title: Mayuras Industrial Services vs. S R Shriraam Shekher & Anr

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 07/2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the jurisdiction of NCLT under 12A of IBC is limited. Further, where the CoC had approved more than 90% of the voting share, it is not open to the NCLT in law to reject the application.

NCLAT New Delhi: Ex-Director Cannot Claim Copy Of Resolution Plan When Entire CIRP Process Completed

Case Title: Diwakar Sharma vs. Anand Sonbhadra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1182 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT), New Delhi bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that an Ex-Director cannot claim a copy of the Resolution Plan after its approval since the entire CIRP process is over with the Resolution Plan already approved in 2022.

NCLT

Operational Creditor Misleads Court To Evade Prohibition Under Section 10A Of IBC, NCLT Mumbai Imposes Cost of Rs. 25,000/-

Case Title: Oswal Minerals Limited v Vidhi Minerals & Alloys Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) NO. 414 OF 2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Ms. Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Shri Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member), has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on an Operational Creditor who disregarded Section 10A of IBC by seeking initiation of CIRP for default occurred within prohibited period and deliberately misled the court by stating incorrect facts.

“Further, with distress it is noted that despite the clear language of the Section 10A of the Code, the Operational Creditor sought to initiate the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor in clear disregard to the Provisions of the Code and by mentioning misleading facts in Part-IV of the petition. At Point No.2 of Part IV, despite mentioning that the Corporate Debtor had issued various purchase orders dated 08.09.2020, 02.10.2020, 12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020, Operational Creditor has mentioned that “Several Invoices were raised from August, 2020 onwards till September 2021………. The attempt of the Operational Creditor in mentioning such incorrect facts is nothing but an attempt to take undue advantage of the present proceedings”.

NCLT Kochi: Section 238 Of IBC Has Overriding Powers Over The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act Of 2003 And Its Proceedings

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner, Works Contract, Kerala State Goods and Services Department, Ernakulam vs. Vinod Balachandran FCA, Liquidator

Case No.: Company Appeal (IBC)/01/KOB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench comprising of Justice T Krishna Valli (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Shri. Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has held that the Section 238 of IBC has overriding powers over the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and its proceedings.

Requirement To Submit Claim As Per Format Given In Liquidation Regulations Is Directory In Nature: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: IDBI Bank Limited v EPC Constructions India Limited

Case No.: CP(IB)No.1832/MB/C-II/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that the requirement of submitting claims as per format prescribed under ‘Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016’ is directory in nature and to merely ensure timely completion of process. The said requirement is not intended to scuttle rights of persons.

“It appears that the requirement to adhere to the forms specified under the Liquidation Regulations is directory in nature for the timely completion of the process and not intended to scuttle the rights of the persons or increase the disputes and consequential appeal under Section 42 of the Code.”

MCA

MCA Notification: Moratorium Under IBC Inapplicable To Agreements Under Convention & Protocol Relating To Aircraft, Aircraft Engines, Airframes And Helicopters

Ref: F. No. Insol-30/9/2020-Insolvency-MCA

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”), Government of India, has issued a notification dated 03.10.2023 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary).

On 16.11.2001, the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“Convention”) and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters specific to Aircraft Equipment (“Protocol”) were adopted under the joint auspices of International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law concluded at Cape Town.

India is a signatory to the Convention and the Protocol. Therefore, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers under Section 14(3)(a) of IBC, has notified that moratorium under Section 14(1) of IBC shall not apply to transactions, arrangements or agreements, under the Convention and the Protocol, relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, airframes and helicopters.