Resolution Professional [RP/IRP]

Development Rights are also fully covered by the definition of Property under Section 3(27) of the IBC – Nilesh Sharma RP – Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mordhwaj Singh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the definition under Section 3(27) of the Property is an inclusive definition which obviously includes the Development Rights which was obtained by the Developers from the Owners by Development Agreement dated 03.03.2007 were subsequently assigned to the Corporate Debtor by an Agreement dated 30.07.2010. The Developer was handed over the possession in pursuance of Consent Award dated 05.09 2009.

Development Rights are also fully covered by the definition of Property under Section 3(27) of the IBC – Nilesh Sharma RP – Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mordhwaj Singh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If CIRP having come to an end and liquidation has not been ordered, no further steps are required to be taken by RP, CIRP proceedings may be treated to be closed and Resolution Professional cannot file application for dissolution under Section 54 of IBC | RP can intimate the RoC for striking off the name of Corporate Debtor from the Register of the Companies – Janak Jagjivan Shah RP Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CoC of Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) CIRP having been unsuccessful and no liquidation order having been passed, recourse to Section 54 of IBC, could not have been taken by the RP
(ii) When the entity, who has initiated the CIRP is not ready to proceed any further and CIRP period having already come to an end, no further steps were required in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and RP could have closed the matter by intimating the Registrar of Companies for striking off the name of Company from the Register of the Companies.
(iii) The CIRP having come to an end and liquidation has not been ordered, no further steps are required to be taken by the RP. The CIRP proceedings may be treated to be closed.

If CIRP having come to an end and liquidation has not been ordered, no further steps are required to be taken by RP, CIRP proceedings may be treated to be closed and Resolution Professional cannot file application for dissolution under Section 54 of IBC | RP can intimate the RoC for striking off the name of Corporate Debtor from the Register of the Companies – Janak Jagjivan Shah RP Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CoC of Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

IBC being overrides both the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (CMSPA) and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 | Payment of pre-CIRP dues to creditors cannot be made by Resolution Professional outside the resolution framework – Avil Menezes RP of Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Coal and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Our legal system includes the principle of public trust as a part of the Indian jurisprudence and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgements that the Constitution postulates the principle of public trust especially in Part IV.
(ii) IBC being a later enactment, it would override both the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (CMSPA) and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
(iii) As per the provisions of the IBC, any Government and/or statutory Authority is also required to file its claims for any dues pending to be paid to such authority.
(iv) The reasoning of Rainbow Papers will be applicable only in such cases where the statutory provision creating first charge in favour of the relevant government or statutory authority is pari materia with the provision of Section 48 of the GVAT Act.

IBC being overrides both the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (CMSPA) and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 | Payment of pre-CIRP dues to creditors cannot be made by Resolution Professional outside the resolution framework – Avil Menezes RP of Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Coal and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Suspension period of an Insolvency Professional is a matter within the realm of the IBBI Disciplinary Committee – Vijendra Kumar Jain Vs. The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Anr. – Bombay High Court

Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that:

(i) The action of suspending the registration of the petitioner as RP on the basis of judgment of NCLAT, which was not challenged by the IP, is justified.
(ii) The period for which such suspension should operate is a matter within the realm of the Disciplinary Committee.
(iii) The Disciplinary Committee in the light of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 220 of the Code is empowered to take into consideration all relevant aspects including the conduct of RP.

Suspension period of an Insolvency Professional is a matter within the realm of the IBBI Disciplinary Committee – Vijendra Kumar Jain Vs. The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Anr. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top