IBC | Section 9 Petition Not To Be Dismissed If Few Invoices Are Time Barred But Remaining Invoices Are Not; Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v M/S K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, has held that when a petition under Section 9 of IBC is filed based on several invoices and some of the invoices are time barred, then NCLT must consider the remaining invoices which are within limitation and whether they cross the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore. The Section 9 petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that some of the invoices are time barred.

NCLAT

“IBC Does Not Contemplate Multiplicity Of Applications Against The Same Personal Guarantor”: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Union Bank of India v Mr. P.K. Balasubramanian

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 293 of 2022

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 when the Insolvency Resolution Process commences against a Personal Guarantor, the claims of all Creditors are taken care of. The IBC does not contemplate multiplicity of applications against the same Personal Guarantor.

NCLAT Delhi Upholds Subsequent Reduction Of Claim By The IRP, Based On An Arbitral Award

Case Title: Intec Capital Ltd. v Uday Kumar Bhaskar Bhat

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.361 of 2023.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has upheld the decision of the IRP whereby the claim of financial creditor was reduced after having been once admitted, based on an arbitral award which came into knowledge of IRP subsequently. The Bench held that the IRP is empowered to change the claim amount in the event any additional material comes into picture.

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.

NCLAT Chennai To Conduct Physical Hearings On Tuesday, Wednesday And Thursday

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, has issued a circular dated 01.04.2023, intimating that cases before NCLAT Chennai will be taken up through only Physical Mode on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Further, matters would be heard in Virtual Mode every Monday and Friday. In case if any Member of NCLAT Chennai is on leave on a particular day, then the cases will be heard through Virtual Mode on that particular day. The aforesaid arrangement shall continue until further orders by the Chairperson or Judicial Member of NCLAT.

Claim For Pre-CIRP Dues Not Been Filed, Electricity Department Not Entitled To Recover Such Dues Or To Disconnect Electricity: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Swastik Aqua Ltd. & Anr. v Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 847 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that if the Electricity Department does not file any claim for its pre-CIRP electricity dues, then it is neither entitled to recover the pre-CIRP electricity dues, nor entitled to disconnect the connection of Corporate Debtor over such non-payment.

Allocation Of Meagre Amount Cant Be A Ground To Question The Resolution Plan: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Pani Logistics v Vikas G. Jain & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 205 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that mere allocation of meagre amount cannot be a ground to question the resolution plan. The allocation in the resolution plan to the creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value. The NCLAT Bench has upheld the NCLT’s order, wherein it was held that the Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount when Financial Creditors have not been paid in full in the Resolution Plan.

No Scope For Condonation Of Delay Beyond 15 Days, Much Less 45 Days: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Diwakar Sharma v Anand Sonbhadra

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1446 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that there is no scope for condonation of delay beyond the period of 15 days much less 45 days, as there is no window available for NCLAT to exercise its jurisdiction for condonation of delay.

NCLT

NCLT Chennai Approves The Resolution Plan Of Adani Port And Sez Ltd. For Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IB)/85/(CHE)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Shri. Sameer Kakkar (Technical Member) has approved the resolution plan submitted by Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. for Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. is a Mr. Gautam Adani promoted company and a part of Adani Group. It owns 12 domestic ports in India, spread across the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha.

NCLT Hyderabad Approves Resolution Plan Of Jindal Saw Limited Of Merger With Sathavahana Ispat Limited

Case Title: Trimex Industries Vs. Sathavahana Ispat Limited

Case No: IA (IBC) No.1475 of 2022 in CP IB No.17/9/HDB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badrinath (Member Judicial) and Shri. Charan Singh (Member Technical) has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Jindal Saw Limited (JSL), a flagship company of the P.R. Jindal Group. This decision allows for the merger of Sathavahana Ispat Limited (SIL), the Corporate Debtor, with JSL. Both JSL and SIL are listed on NSE and BSE. JSL, a leading manufacturer of submerged arc and spiral welded pipes for various industries, will benefit immensely from SIL's expertise in producing and selling pig iron and ductile iron pipes. The fusion of these two giants will amplify JSL's manufacturing capabilities, solidifying its position within the industry.

NCLT Bengaluru Initiates Insolvency Proceedings Against Mantri Developers Ltd., A Mantri Group Company

Case Title: M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v M/s. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: C.P. (IB) No.94/BB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Shri T. Krishnavalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Ahsan Ahmad has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”).

Section 30(4) Of IBC Directory In Nature, Does Not Compel COC To Distribute Payments Based On Value Of Security: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai vs. M/s. Galada Power And Telecommunications Ltd.

Case No.: CP(IB) No.384/7/HDB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Shri Dr. N. V. Rama Krishna Badarinath (Judicial Member) and Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has held that Section 30(4) of IBC is directory in nature and does not compel the CoC to distribute payments to creditors based on the value of security held by them. The Bench has dismissed the application filed by a Financial Creditor claiming that resolution fund must be distributed as per voting share in CoC and not as per the kind of charge a financial creditor has on the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

The Bench has reiterated that a dissenting secured creditor cannot seek a higher amount to be paid to them on the basis of the value of their security interest by pleading dissatisfaction.

NCLT Urges Petitioners To Comply With Regulation 20(1a) Of Information Utility Regulations

File No.: 25/02/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has released a Circular dated 03.04.2023, requesting the Petitioners in Sections 7 and 9 of IBC proceedings to produce the record of Information Utility (NeSL certificate) for effective hearing of their case and comply with Regulation 20(1A) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Information Utilities) Regulation, 2016 (“Information Utility Regulation”). When a Petitioner files a petition under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, (“IBC”), the Regulation 20(1A) requires the Petitioners to produce the record of Information Utility (NeSL certificate) at the earliest for effective hearing of their case.

In Absence Of A Charge Being Registered For Corporate Guarantee, The Appellant Could Not Be Treated As A Secured Financial Creditor; NCLT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Intec Capital Ltd. vs Arvind Gaudana

Case No.: CP(IB) 561 of 2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical) and Dr. Madan B. Gosavi (Judicial) dealt with the interpretation of a ‘secured’ financial creditor under the IBC. The tribunal held that the applicant in the present case, could not be considered as a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor as no charge had been created by him, on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website.