There is no look back period specified under Section 66 of IBC, which refers to Fraudulent Transactions and unless the Liquidator scrutinises the documents, he would not be able to finalise or conclude whether the transaction also falls under Sections 43 or 46 of the Code – Amardeep Singh Bhatia Vs. Abhishek Nagori Liquidator for Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that in the Section 43, 45 and 46 of IBC, though the relevant time is provided for under the Code, the fact remains that unless the Liquidator, scrutinises and peruses the material which is relevant, to determine whether the Preferential Transactions or Undervalued Transactions took place at the relevant time, he cannot come to a conclusion as to whether these transactions took place during the relevant time. There is no look back period specified under Section 66, which refers to Fraudulent Transactions. If the Liquidator finds that there is a fraud committed by the Corporate Debtor at any time, he can approach the Adjudicating Authority and file an Application seeking necessary directions.

If a communication issued earlier to the Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC indicates dispute, it can be taken into account by the Adjudicating Authority – First WalkIn Technologies Vs. Coffee Day Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that in a Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Question on Merit of Dispute, cannot be gone into by an Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal). Of course, the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) is to examine before Admitting, or Rejecting an Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , 1) Whether the Dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor, qualifies as a Dispute, as defined under Section 5(6) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016; and 2) The Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) can examine whether Merits of Dispute, given by the Corporate Debtor, satisfy the Condition specified under Sub Section 2 (8) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

There is no provision in the IBC, with respect to impleadment of any Creditor apart from the Creditors who have triggered the CIRP – Vitol S.A. Vs. Mr. Abhishek Nagori – NCLAT New Delhi

I. Case Reference Case Citation : (2022) ibclaw.in 954 NCLAT Case Name : Vitol S.A. Vs. Mr. Abhishek Nagori Corporate Debtor : M/s Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd.  Appeal No. : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 792 of 2020 (Arising…

Lasa Supergenerics Ltd. Vs. Harishree Aromatics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

I. Case Reference Case Citation : (2022) ibclaw.in 952 NCLAT Case Name : Lasa Supergenerics Ltd. Vs. Harishree Aromatics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No. : Company Appeal (AT) No. 82 of 2021 [Arising out of order dated 17.02.2021 passed…

If workers are not specifically includes in the list of Stakeholders, under Liquidation Regulation 31, they cannot be made a part of the SCC under Regulation 31A(1) of Liquidation Process Regulations – Varrsana Employee Welfare Association Vs. Anil Goel, The Liquidator of Varrsana Ispat Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that Regulation 31A flows from 31 and has to be read together and interpreted in its truest sense keeping the objective of the Code. Read congruously, Regulations 31 & 31A specify that when the Employees have no subsisting Claim, they cannot be included in the list of Stakeholders, thereby meaning that if the Workers are not specifically includes in the list of Stakeholders, under Regulation 31, they cannot be made a part of the SCC under Regulation 31A(1). It also held that Claim of Gratuity is payable only at a future date in the happening of any event like retirement, resignation, termination, death, etc., and therefore, it cannot be construed as a Claim subsisting to be included in the list of Stakeholders and consequently seeking a place in the SCC.

A certificate of sale issued by a Civil or a Revenue Officer in evidence of a sale conducted by way of public auction is not compulsorily registrable under Registration Act, 1908 – L. Sangeetha Vs. The Sub Registrar, Pollachi – Madras High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil or a Revenue Officer in evidence of a sale conducted by way of public auction is not compulsorily registrable and Section 89(4) imposes an obligation on the Revenue Officer, who conducts an auction sale to forward the certificate to the Registering Authority to enable him to file the same in Book-I maintained by him. Under Section 17(2)(xii) would show that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil or a Revenue Officer in evidence of a sale conducted by way of public auction is not compulsorily registrable and Section 89(4) imposes an obligation on the Revenue Officer, who conducts an auction sale to forward the certificate to the Registering Authority to enable him to file the same in Book-I maintained by him.

The period of Limitation for filing a Suit/Appeal, is fixed by Law/Statute/Code and ordinarily, it cannot be deemed to be excluded or extended, automatically or as a matter of routine – M.K. Resely Vs. Union Bank of India – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that the Legislature, has enacted Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to exempt a particular / certain period, covered by a Bonafide Litigious Activity. Inherently, there is an element of Mistake, in the invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As a matter of fact, in extending the benefit of the ingredients of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to a Party / Litigant, the Tribunal, is to see whether the conduct will satisfy the test of prosecuting a Given Proceeding in a Good faith and Due diligence. In short, if a Good faith is established, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be pressed into service, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal.

Whether Adjudicating Authority has the sufficient power to extend the time lines for making payments as per approved Resolution Plan and Whether Adjudicating Authority can order for fresh CIRP – Earthin Projects Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anup Kumar Singh RP of Indu Projects Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

Several issues have been raised in the Appeal which are required to be deliberated upon before coming to final conclusion: (I) Whether the Adjudicating Authority has got the sufficient power to extend the time lines for making payments as per approved Resolution Plan and if so, whether in the present case this power was exercised or otherwise by the Adjudicating Authority correctly ? (II) Whether the Adjudicating Authority violated the principals of natural justice in the present case ? (III) Whether the Adjudicating Authority could have ordered for fresh Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process when the Successful Resolution Applicant has claimed to be in position to implement the Resolution Plan, albeit, beyond the schedule as stipulated in the Resolution Plan ? (IV) Whether, the Appellant exhausted legal remedies in view of failure to comply extended time lines permitted vide order dated 13.04.2022 as well as after dismissal of appeal filed by one Operational Creditor before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging this Appellate Tribunal’s order ?

Subsequent to approval of Resolution Plan, no amendment is permissible under law – Mohd Nazim Khan Vs. Redhex IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

An application was filed by the Chairman on behalf of the Monitoring Committee praying for amendment in the Resolution Plan which has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority holding that subsequent to approval of Resolution Plan, no amendment is permissible under law. NCLAT held that it is open for the Appellant to make appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority for issuing directions but the prayer for amendment of the plan has rightly been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.