Successful Resolution Applicant

Vedanta Ltd. Vs. Mr Ravi Sankar Devarakonda, Interim Manager of the Steering Committee and Erstwhile RP of Meenakshi Energy Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]

Vedanta Ltd. Vs. Mr Ravi Sankar Devarakonda, Interim Manager of the Steering Committee and Erstwhile RP of Meenakshi Energy Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Due to non-filing of claim during CIRP, Electricity Company to refund payment made by SRA under protest for restoration of electricity connection ahead of upcoming sugar cane crushing season and the matter falls under Section 60(50)(c) of the IBC – Twentyone Sugars Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT observed that:

(i) The Corporate Debtor used to run a sugar crushing unit. A sugar crushing factory is operational generally for six months in a year during the crushing and during this time electricity connection is crucial for the operation of its factory as without it the factory could not operate and may come to a standstill.
(ii) The SRA agreed to make the payment of electricity dues under protest and protection of Hon’ble NCLT order since the time was an essence for the implementation of the Resolution Plan and revival of the Corporate Debtor.
(iii) The present matter, thus, falls under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC since it relates to the insistence of the Respondent for payment of pre-CIRP amounts that stood extinguished by way of the Resolution Plan.
(iv) The amount paid be refunded by the respondent within six weeks from today.

Due to non-filing of claim during CIRP, Electricity Company to refund payment made by SRA under protest for restoration of electricity connection ahead of upcoming sugar cane crushing season and the matter falls under Section 60(50)(c) of the IBC – Twentyone Sugars Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can a clause of an approved Resolution Plan relating to public shareholding, which does not conform with Rule 19A(5) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, be modified? – Kundan Minerals and Metals Ltd. Vs. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

In this case, in approved Resolution Plan, the public shareholding was 2.28%, however, in board resolution of new management, the public shareholding has been increased to 5% to comply Rule 19A (5) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957.

NSE objected regarding the variation of the public shares in respect of the approved plan and the board resolution and asked to provide a revised plan approved by NCLT considering the treatment of capital restructuring as per board resolution.

The Hon’ble NCLT held that:

(i) It was the duty of the RP to examine the resolution plan received by him to confirm that the plan or any part of the plan was not in violation of any existing laws in terms of Section 30(2)(e) of the I&B Code.
(ii) Mere failure to discharge the duty by RP in respect of verification of substantive rules of maintaining minimum 5% public shareholding in the plan, which is approved by this Adjudicating Authority, a resolution of the corporate debtor as well as the implementation of a resolution plan should not be jeopardized.
(iii) The modification sought in the resolution plan approved on 04.10.2023, is not for any change or modification of plan value or its distribution. The modification is in fact beneficial to the public shareholders at large.

Can a clause of an approved Resolution Plan relating to public shareholding, which does not conform with Rule 19A(5) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, be modified? – Kundan Minerals and Metals Ltd. Vs. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is not applicable in cases where the Resolution Plan has been approved under the IBC – Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that:

(i) The Custom Dept. not having made any claim before the IRP during the CIRP process and the demand not having been part of the resolution plan, has stood extinguished and cannot be continued.
(ii) As per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, in the event a party to the appeal dies or is adjudicated as an insolvent or in the case of a company, is being wound up, the appeal would abate.
(iii) It is clear that Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 would not be attracted in a case where the resolution plan has been approved by the IBC.

Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is not applicable in cases where the Resolution Plan has been approved under the IBC – Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

The pendency of litigations initiated by any person or stakeholder is not a justifiable ground for non-implementation of Resolution Plan unless stayed by a Court/ Tribunal – Darwin Platform Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

In this judgment, Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench clarifies the following issues:

A. Can status of the Corporate Debtor reflected as “active, non-compliant” in the records of MCA be a reason of non-implementation of Resolution Plan?
B. Is Pendency of litigations initiated by any person or stakeholder a justifiable ground for non-implementation unless the implementation is stayed by a court/tribunal?
C. Whether invocation and encashment of PBG furnished for Resolution Plan as per Regulation 36B of CIRP Regulations, is legal and proper?
D. Whether an extension of timelines for implementation of approved Resolution Plan should be granted?
E. In the event of non-extension of time for implementation of the Resolution Plan, can CIRP be restored?

The pendency of litigations initiated by any person or stakeholder is not a justifiable ground for non-implementation of Resolution Plan unless stayed by a Court/ Tribunal – Darwin Platform Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) is entitled to relief of extension of benefit of protection of Section 32A of IBC to lift the attachment under PMLA by Enforcement Directorate over the assets of the Corporate Debtor – Vantage Point Asset Pte. Ltd Vs. Gaurav Misra, RP of Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the NCLT while approving the Rplan, refused to grant prayer made by the SRA for release of the assets attached by ED under PMLA.

Hon’ble NCLAT referring judgments in Shiv Charan and Ors. vs. Adjudicating Authority and Anr. (2024) ibclaw.in 154 HC, Rajiv Chakraborty vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2022) ibclaw.in 257 HC and Manish Kumar vs. Union of India and Anr. (2021) ibclaw.in 16 SC allowed the reliefs and set aside relevant portion from the impugned order and held that the SRA is entitled to relief of extension of benefit of protection of Section 32-A to lift the attachment by Enforcement Directorate over the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) is entitled to relief of extension of benefit of protection of Section 32A of IBC to lift the attachment under PMLA by Enforcement Directorate over the assets of the Corporate Debtor – Vantage Point Asset Pte. Ltd Vs. Gaurav Misra, RP of Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top