Besides Section 27, RP Can Be Replaced On A Finding Given By NCLT Over His Conduct Or Any Proven Fact: NCLAT Delhi

Case title: Katra Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, RP of Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 382 of 2024.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), has held that an application filed for replacement of Resolution Professional, which is not filed under Section 27 of IBC, can be entertained when NCLT has given a finding on the conduct of Resolution Professional or in presence of any proven fact.

The NCLAT upheld the rejection of an application filed by a minority shareholder of the Corporate Debtor seeking replacement of Resolution Professional over mere allegations.

NCLAT Delhi Rejects Homebuyers Application To Initiate CIRP Proceeding Against Ansal Hi-Tech Township

Case: Pankaj Mehta VS M/s. Ansal Hi-tech Township Limited

Citation: Comp. App (AT) (INS) No. 248 / 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi, comprising Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has rejected an application filed by homebuyers under Section 7 of IBC seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Ansal Hi-Tech Township.

The Homebuyers had purchased flats in the Sushant Metropolis Township project being developed by Ansal Hi-Tech Township in NOIDA.

NCLAT held that homebuyers are from numerous different projects, and they have not established their case as creditors of a class concerning any particular project registered with RERA to fulfil the requirement of 10% or 100 homebuyers, as stipulated under Section 7(1) of IBC.

NCLAT Delhi: New Resolution Applicants Aren't Entitled To Participate In CIRP And Submit Resolution Plan To NCLT Without Issuance Of Fresh Form G

Case Title: Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mamta Binani (RP of Rolta India Ltd.) and Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 464 of 2024

Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that new Resolution Applicants are not entitled to submit applications to the Adjudicating Authority to participate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') and submit a Resolution Plan, when a fresh Form G hasn't been issued under Regulation 36A (1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations 2016”).

NCLAT Delhi: RP Can Always Ask For Additional Information From Creditors To Substantiate The Claim And Exercise Due Diligence

Case Title: Mr. Umesh Kumar vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, IRP of Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 100 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held the Resolution Professional can always ask for additional information from creditors to substantiate the claim and exercise due diligence.

NCLAT Delhi: Interveners Do Not Have The Right To Seek Relief For Themselves Before The Adjudicating Authority

Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2643, 3702 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the interveners in a case do not have the right to seek relief for themselves before the Adjudicating Authority.

The NCLAT observed that interveners are expected to either support the challenged order or the appellant. The individuals who submit their claims to the Insolvency Resolution Professional and whose claims are documented have the complete right to approach the Successful Resolution Applicant or the Monitoring and Implementation Committee. They are entitled to pursue their entitlements according to the provisions outlined in the Resolution Plan.

NCLAT Delhi: Examining The Validity Of Any Contractual Agreement Is Beyond The Scope Of Powers Of RP

Case Title: Mr. Umesh Kumar vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, IRP of Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 100 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held the examining the validity/sustainability of any contractual agreement including its formatting, etc lies outside the purview of the charter of duties and responsibilities of the Resolution Professional ('RP').

NCLT

NCLT Mumbai Holds Resolution Professional Accountable For Biased Conduct, Sets Aside Approved Resolution Plan

Case: Bank of India Vs Wadhwa Buildcon LLP

Citation: C.P. (IB) No. 2946 of 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench, comprising of Justice Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Madhu Sinha (Technical Member), has held the Resolution Professional accountable for biased conduct aimed at facilitating the approval of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) Plan by the Committee of Creditors (COC). Consequently, the NCLT has set aside the Resolution Plan of the SRA, as approved by the COC, holding SRA ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC to submit the Resolution Plan.

Party Refuses To Argue Unless Proceedings Are Recorded, NCLT Ahmedabad Adjourns Party's All Cases Sine Dine Till Recording Facility Is Made Available

Case Title: Gujarat Operational Creditors Association & Another Vs Nemo in 'State Bank of India v Essar Steels Ltd.'

Case No.: IA/347(AHM)2024 in CP(IB) 40 of 2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Mrs. Chitra Hankare (Judicial Member) and Dr. Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy (Technical Member), has adjourned all matters sine dine belonging to Gujarat Operational Creditors Association (Applicant) till the time the project for online recording of proceedings is taken up by the administrative side of NCLT.

“Till the project for online recording of proceedings is taken up by the administrative side we will not hear any of applicant's matters and it is listed for further hearing Sine die as per his prayer.”

In a recall application filed by the Applicant, interim prayers were made for switching on the recording feature in Webex platform for audio/video recording of proceedings before NCLT. The NCLT ruled that it is not empowered under NCLT Rules or otherwise to grant such prayer.

“The main prayer sought by the Learned Counsel before this Court through this application is recording of the proceedings to be conducted when the cases filed by him are being heard in order to enable him to interpret or determine whether the orders passed are in order to satisfy the prayers filed by him. This Court has no powers under either the duties and responsibilities entrusted to this Court for conducting the proceedings, or the procedure prescribed in NCLT Rules (which were followed to hear the application) to pass any order as sought and the orders were passed strictly in terms of Rules laid down in NCLT 2016.”