11. November

Is it required to issue notice to Personal Guarantor while passing order under Section 115(2) of IBC when the Personal Guarantor did not submit Repayment Plan | Is Regulation 19 of Personal Guarantors Insolvency Regulation 2019 applicable even no Repayment Plan is submitted by Personal Guarantor – Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta Vs. Prashant Jain RP – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:’
(i) The Personal Guarantor kept silence for years together and when consequential Order under Section 115 has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, he is raising grievance of not being heard by the Adjudicating Authority.
(ii) Regulation 19 is not applicable in the facts of the present case nor Personal Guarantor can rely on Regulation 19.
(iii) No Repayment Plan having been submitted or finalised, Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in giving liberty to the Creditors to file an Application for Bankruptcy under Chapter IV, which is a statutory consequence under Section 115(2). In so far as discharge of the RP is concerned, the discharge is also consequential to completion of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Process against the Personal Guarantor under the provisions of Chapter III of the Code.

Is it required to issue notice to Personal Guarantor while passing order under Section 115(2) of IBC when the Personal Guarantor did not submit Repayment Plan | Is Regulation 19 of Personal Guarantors Insolvency Regulation 2019 applicable even no Repayment Plan is submitted by Personal Guarantor – Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta Vs. Prashant Jain RP – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

An application under Rules 60 and 61 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be filed within 30 days of the sale of the immovable property coupled with the deposit of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale – Mrs Renu Jain Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that submission of application/objections within thirty (30) days of the date of sale and simultaneous deposit of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale, both are held to be mandatory. The petitioner being an outsider to the auction process, having not participated at all, cannot claim to have sustained any injury, much less any substantial injury by such confirmation of sale in favour of respondent nos.2 & 3/auction purchasers, who had diligently participated in the auction process and had deposited the sale price within the given time schedule. The application under the aforesaid Rules has to be filed within thirty (30) days of the sale of the immovable property coupled with the deposit of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale.

An application under Rules 60 and 61 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be filed within 30 days of the sale of the immovable property coupled with the deposit of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale – Mrs Renu Jain Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Date of default in case of an application under Section 7 filed on based of a Consent Decree passed by the DRT – Jubin Kishore Thakkar, Suspended Directors of KLT Automotive & Tubular Products Ltd. Vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that Section 7 Application having been founded on the basis of default committed after Consent Decree dated 29.08.2022 was passed, Default cannot be pegged on 10A period when Application under Section 7 is founded on the basis of Consent Decree dated 29.08.2022.

Date of default in case of an application under Section 7 filed on based of a Consent Decree passed by the DRT – Jubin Kishore Thakkar, Suspended Directors of KLT Automotive & Tubular Products Ltd. Vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 231 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not permit the Tribunal to make substantial modifications to a Scheme which has been approved by its Members – CMS Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Section 231 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not permit the Tribunal to make substantial modifications to a Scheme which has been approved by its Members – CMS Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Does the non-submission of a Repayment Plan equate to a rejection of the repayment plan under Section 114 of the IBC? – CA Jasin Jose RP of Ms Devi Kalesh – NCLT Kochi Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Kochi Bench held that in view of the Section 114 of the IBC, this Tribunal is of the opinion that since no repayment plan has been made out till date, the possibility of a resolution of debt in the matter appears grim. Therefore, the application seeking pass order declaring that creditors are entitled to proceed with bankruptcy is hereby allowed.

Does the non-submission of a Repayment Plan equate to a rejection of the repayment plan under Section 114 of the IBC? – CA Jasin Jose RP of Ms Devi Kalesh – NCLT Kochi Bench Read Post »

The date of default in case of Personal Guarantor can be different for Corporate Debtor | Liability of a Personal Guarantor would be taken to be effective from the service of notice Form B under Rule 7(1) – UCO Bank Vs. Mr. Akhilesh Pandey – NCLT Kolkata Bench

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

The date of default in case of Personal Guarantor can be different for Corporate Debtor | Liability of a Personal Guarantor would be taken to be effective from the service of notice Form B under Rule 7(1) – UCO Bank Vs. Mr. Akhilesh Pandey – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Treatment of Security Deposit of Postpaid Subscribers and Unspent Balance of Prepaid Subscribers in Resolution Plan | Shall TRAI Act, 1997 being a special statute prevail over the IBC, 2016? – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT upheld the decision of the NCLT, Mumbai Bench wherein the NCLT held that security deposit balances refundable to post paid subscribers and amount of un-spent balances in prepaid plans shall be admitted as Operational Debt. As regards demand on account of financial disincentive levied by TRAI, the said amount is a nature of Operational Debt other than Government dues, as these dues are a nature of fine for non-maintenance of quality standards only.

The Hon’ble NCLAT also rejected the submission of the Appellant that TRAI Act is a special statute and would prevail over the IBC.

Treatment of Security Deposit of Postpaid Subscribers and Unspent Balance of Prepaid Subscribers in Resolution Plan | Shall TRAI Act, 1997 being a special statute prevail over the IBC, 2016? – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The date of default cannot be shifted by a recall notice issued by the Financial Creditor – Sandip Narendrakumar Patel (Promotor/Ex-Director) Yours Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Svakarma Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the Corporate Debtor cannot be permitted to take advantage of the fact that the Financial Creditor had issued a notice of recall dated 06.11.2020, giving 15 days time, to the Corporate Debtor to pay the same and to calculate the date of default as 21.11.2020 which falls within the cut off period of Section 10A because issuance of recall notice, in pursuance of the clause 10.3 of the agreement, was on the occurrence of any of the events of default, which had already occurred in the month of January or at the most February.

The date of default cannot be shifted by a recall notice issued by the Financial Creditor – Sandip Narendrakumar Patel (Promotor/Ex-Director) Yours Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Svakarma Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether Adjudicating Authority could have precluded the consideration of the 12A proposal of the Suspended Directors by the CoC on the ground that Resolution Plan was under consideration of NCLT – Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anil Matta, RP of Primrose Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT while upholding the decision of NCLT held that the suspended management cannot insist, impose or force the consideration of its settlement proposal by the CoC when the CoC in the exercise of its business decision has categorically decided against considering any such proposal from the Appellant.
The Hon’ble Tribunal also held that when a resolution plan has already been received by the CoC and the CoC in the exercise of its commercial wisdom has decided to only consider this plan and has also rejected with majority voting the settlement plan given by the Appellant, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in disallowing further opportunity to the Appellant to submit a Section 12A proposal

Whether Adjudicating Authority could have precluded the consideration of the 12A proposal of the Suspended Directors by the CoC on the ground that Resolution Plan was under consideration of NCLT – Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anil Matta, RP of Primrose Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top