IBC| Time-Barred Recovery Certificate Can Be Segregated From Composite Claim Under Section 7: Supreme Court

Case Title: Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath, has held that in a composite application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) based on several Recovery Certificates issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal, if any of the Recovery Certificate(s) is barred by limitation, then the same can be segregated from composite claim. However, as the decree (Recovery Certificate) would still be alive, it can be treated as a claim made in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in view of Public Announcement.

In 2019, a composite application under Section 7 of IBC was filed based on three recovery certificates, one of which dated back to 2015 and was hence barred by limitation.

“The application with respect to the two recovery certificates issued in the year 2017 is maintainable. In the event the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the CIRP could not lie so far as the recovery certificate of 2015 is concerned, as the decree would be still alive, the claim based on the said recovery certificate could be segregated from the composite claim and the Committee of Creditors shall, in that event, treat the sum reflected in the said recovery certificate as part of the claims made in pursuance of the public announcement. This direction we are issuing in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench held.

NCLAT

NCLAT New Delhi: Limitation To File Appeal Commences On The Order Pronouncement Date And Not When Aggrieved Party Becomes Aware Of Its Content

Case Title: Raiyan Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unrivalled Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the Limitation for filing of the Appeal before NCLAT does not commence on the date when the Appellant became aware of the contents but it shall commence when the order was pronounced.

NCLAT Chennai: Grounds Not Taken On Jurisdiction Before Cannot Be Contested Afresh On Appeal When The Parties Accepted The Jurisdiction In NCLT

Case Title: Jitendra Virmani vs. MRO – Tek Reality Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No.363/2019

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 the grounds not taken on jurisdiction before the NCLT, cannot be contested afresh in appeal as the parties have exercised acquiescence and accepted the jurisdiction of the NCLT.

NCLAT New Delhi: Liquidator Must Follow Clause 12 Of Schedule 1 Of Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, And Not Lay Its Owns Terms And Conditions In The EOI For Period Of Payment Of Balance Sale Consideration

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Kothari Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs. Sneha Techno Equipments Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company App. (AT) (Ins) No. 316 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the Liquidator is required to follow the terms and conditions of Clause 12 of Schedule 1 of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, and cannot lay down its own terms and conditions in the EOI regarding the period for payment of balance sale consideration.

NCLAT Chennai: Shareholders Cannot Take Decisions For The Company’s Business Or Hold Negotiations With Parties

Case Title: Jitendra Virmani vs. MRO – Tek Reality Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No.363/2019

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 the Board of Directors have the onus to take decisions for the Company’s business or negotiations with the parties concerned and not the shareholders of the company.

NCLAT Chennai: Threshold To Maintain Oppression Proceedings Not Limited To Holding Of Shares Alone But Extends To Manner Of Acquiring Of Shares

Case Title: Jitendra Virmani vs. MRO – Tek Reality Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No.363/2019

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 the threshold to maintain oppression proceedings is not only limited to the holding of shares alone but also extends to the manner in which the shares were acquired. The Bench was adjudicating a matter under the Companies Act, 2013 relating to oppression and mismanagement.

NCLT

Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Oppose Its Own Resolution Plan: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Educomp Solutions Limited

Case No.: Company Petition No. (IB)-101/(PB)/2017

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 a Successful Resolution Applicant cannot oppose the approval of its own resolution plan before NCLT.

“Even otherwise also, the SRA/Ebix had submitted the Resolution Plan consciously and the exercise of submission of plan by it excluded many financial and legal situation from the process. Even if as per the thought of the SRA/Ebix, there are infirmities in the Resolution Plan, which should be ground to reject the same, it is not open for the SRA/Ebix to take such plea. It is stair decisis that no man can advantage of his own wrong (Nullus commodum copere potest de injuria sua propria)”, the Bench observed.

Liquidator Bound To Handover Vacant & Peaceful Possession Of Property To Buyer As Per Contract : NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Mr. Sri Vamsi Kambhammettu v Mr. Mohd Jamal Athemadnia

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 376/07/HDB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member), has held that after sale of Corporate Debtor’s property in auction and receipt of proceeds, the Liquidator is legally empowered to seek vacant and peaceful possession of such property from occupier before the NCLT.

Even after expiry of Lease Deed and sale of Property to another person, the Tenant continued to be in occupation of the Corporate Debtor’s Property. The NCLT has directed the Tenant to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the Property.

During Liquidation, NCLT Empowered To Decide Matters Relating to Eviction Of Premises Owned By Corporate Debtor: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: Mr. Sri Vamsi Kambhammettu v Mr. Mohd Jamal Athemadnia

Case No.: CP (IB) No. 376/07/HDB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member), has held that during the liquidation process, NCLT is the right forum to decide on the matters concerning eviction of the premises owned by the Corporate Debtor.

NCLT Kochi: No Provision For Liquidator To File Income Return Of Corporate Debtor

Case Title: Mr. Vinod Balachandran, Liquidator of Albanna Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: IA(IBC)/84/KOB/2023 IN IBA/38/KOB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) Kochi comprising Justice (Retd.) T. Krishna Valli. (Judicial Member) and Shri. Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has held that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act, IBC, or IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016, requiring the Liquidator of the Company in Liquidation under IBC to file an Income Tax Return.

NCLT Allahabad: An Agreement To Resell Products On An E-Commerce Platform Where The Amount Was Invested For Assured Profit Margins Does Not Fall Under ‘Financial Debt’ U/S 5(8) Of The IBC

Case Title: Rajesh Alfred vs. Ketsaal Retails LLP

Case No.: CP (IB) No.33/ALD/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’), Allahabad Bench comprising of Mr. Praveen Gupta (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ashish Verma (Technical Member), has held that an agreement to resell products on an e-commerce platform (Amazon) where the Applicant paid some amount with some assured profit margins would not confer the status of a ‘Financial Debt’ under Section 5(8) of the IBC.

NCLT Amravati Bench Reconstituted W.E.F. 6th November 2023, Matters To Be Heard Through VC

File No.: 10/03/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has issued a circular dated 23.10.2023, intimating the reconstitution of NCLT Amravati Bench with effect from 06.11.2023.

Justice Telaprolu Rajani (Judicial Member) is demitting office on 05.11.2023 on completion of her tenure.

The reconstituted bench is as under:

NCLT Amravati Bench (Second Half )

1. Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member)
2. Ms. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member)

The matters shall be heard through Video Conferencing.

NCLT New Delhi Bench Reconstituted W.E.F. 1st November 2023

File No.: 10/03/2023-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has issued a circular dated 25.10.2023, intimating the reconstitution of NCLT New Delhi Bench (Court IV) with effect from 01.11.2023.

Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member) is demitting office on 31.10.2023 on completion of his tenure. The reconstituted bench is as under:

NCLT New Delhi (Court No. IV) (Second Half)

1. Shri M.S.S. Sundaram (Judicial Member)
2. Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member)

HIGH COURT

IBC | Assistant General Manager Signs Inspection Order In Place Of Executive Director Of IBBI, Bombay High Court Stays The Suspension Of Insolvency Professional

Case Title: Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Writ Petition (L) No.28206 Of 2023

The Bombay High Court bench, comprising Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice M.M. Sathaye, has stayed the Suspension Order issued against an Insolvency Professional (“IP”) by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”). The Inspection Order issued by IBBI against the IP was signed by Assistant General Manager alone, whereas, as per IBBI (Delegation of Powers and Functions) Order, 2017, any action, inspection or investigation order has to be issued by the Executive Director of IBBI.