CIRP-30A

Whether an application under Section 12A of IBC for withdrawal of the CIRP can be filed after commencement of the Liquidation Proceedings? – Asha Chopra and Ors. Vs. Hind Motors India Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) The CoC exist till continuation of the CIRP and after the Order passed under Section 33 for Liquidation, the CoC does not continues so as to take a decision for withdrawal of an Application under Sections 7, 9 & 10.
(ii) In the Liquidation Process, Compromise or Arrangement is contemplated as per Regulation 2B which clearly negates the submission of the Appellant that withdrawal is permissible only under Section 12A.
(iii) In view of the clear Statutory Scheme as delineated by 12A, Section 33 and Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Regulation, the Hon’ble Bench is of the view that during Liquidation period, an Application under Section 12A is not permissible.
(iv) The Hon’ble NCLAT also does not subscribe to the observation made in V. Navaneetha Krishnan v. Central Bank of India, Coimbatore and Anr. (2018) ibclaw.in 298 NCLAT that even during Liquidation period, any person can make an Application under 12A.

Whether an application under Section 12A of IBC for withdrawal of the CIRP can be filed after commencement of the Liquidation Proceedings? – Asha Chopra and Ors. Vs. Hind Motors India Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

When Resolution Plan approved by CoC and pending before NCLT, without giving an opportunity to SRA, directions of NCLT to CoC to consider settlement proposal of Suspended Directors, cannot be sustained – One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) In the Application u/s 12A, which was filed by the Ex. Director, where a proposal was submitted for settlement, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have given an opportunity to SRA to submit a response to the Application.
(ii) Adjudicating Authority, ought to have allowed opportunity to SRA to respond to the Application, whose Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC and which is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. Without giving an opportunity to the Appellant, direction to the CoC to consider the Plan, cannot be sustained.
(iii) The Application for approval of Resolution Plan being pending consideration, it shall be open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider IA No.188 of 2024 along with its objection.

When Resolution Plan approved by CoC and pending before NCLT, without giving an opportunity to SRA, directions of NCLT to CoC to consider settlement proposal of Suspended Directors, cannot be sustained – One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

An application for withdrawal as per CIRP Regulation 30A read with Section 12A of IBC is to be necessarily made by Applicant who initiated CIRP by filing petition under Sec. 7, Sec. 9 or Sec. 10 of IBC, 2016 – JoinUp Corporation Vs. Mr. R. Sugumaran IRP of Safire Machinery Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai

In this case, the applicant of the application under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 was not willing to sign Form ‘FA’ and that Form ‘FA’ has been signed by the Financial Creditor.

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) From the plain reading of Section 12A it is clear that withdrawal of CIRP has to satisfy twin requirements of an application by the applicant which then needs approval of CoC by atleast 90% voting share. The word applicant is defined in Regulation 2(1)(a) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 as the person(s) filing an application under sections 7, 9 or 10, as the case may be.
(ii) The application for withdrawal as per the Regulation 30A read with Section 12A has to be necessarily made by the applicant who has initiated CIRP by filing application under Section 7, Section 9 or Section 10 of IBC, 2016.
(iii) The impugned order has recorded as under, which is not factually correct, as Form ‘FA’ was not signed or submitted by the Operational Creditor.

An application for withdrawal as per CIRP Regulation 30A read with Section 12A of IBC is to be necessarily made by Applicant who initiated CIRP by filing petition under Sec. 7, Sec. 9 or Sec. 10 of IBC, 2016 – JoinUp Corporation Vs. Mr. R. Sugumaran IRP of Safire Machinery Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Commercial Wisdom of CoC | Modification in Resolution Plan and Post facto approval by CoC | Treatment/Payment of Related Party under Resolution Plan | Effect of Section 164(2)(b) and 166(4) of Companies Act, 2013 | Effect of Section 88 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 – M.K. Rajagopalan Vs. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr. – Supreme Court

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

Commercial Wisdom of CoC | Modification in Resolution Plan and Post facto approval by CoC | Treatment/Payment of Related Party under Resolution Plan | Effect of Section 164(2)(b) and 166(4) of Companies Act, 2013 | Effect of Section 88 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 – M.K. Rajagopalan Vs. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court, no restoration of CIRP is allowed on settlement failed – Gagan Deep Singh Dugal Vs. M/s Ninaniya Estates Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench

In this case, an application has been filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, to restore the captioned petition and revive the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on account of breach of the settlement arrived between the parties.
NCLT held that the Applicant himself has mentioned in the written arguments that more than 90% of the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor. IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court. The Corporate Debtor had paid a sum of Rs. 9,67,00,000/- which is 93.40% of the total outstanding liability. The law on the subject has been categorically laid down by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of SRLK Enterprises LLP Vs Jalan Transolutions (India) Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 189 NCLAT. Hence time and again it has been expressed and explained by the various Courts that the Provisions of IBC, 2016 are not for the recovery of money; but here the intent of the Applicant reveals that the Applicant invokes the provisions of IBC,2016 in order to enforce recovery against the Corporate Debtor; the same should not be allowed.

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court, no restoration of CIRP is allowed on settlement failed – Gagan Deep Singh Dugal Vs. M/s Ninaniya Estates Ltd. – NCLT Jaipur Bench Read Post »

CIRP withdrawal application u/s 12A of IBC cannot be kept pending for constitution of CoC, CIRP Regulation 30A provides a complete mechanism for withdrawal applications being entertained before constitution of CoC and no requirement to hear any other concerned parties except OC/FC, CD & IRP – Abhishek Singh Vs. Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified various issues on settlement CIRP withdrawal under IBC such as (i) Settlement prior to the constitution of CoC and NCLT Rule 11 (ii) Alternative Remedy (iii) Violation of the Moratorium u/s 14 of IBC as the transactions to be made in the accounts of the CD for settlement (iv) Claims of other creditors (v) Section 12A of IBC and Regulation 30A of CIRP Regulations, 2016 (vi) Power under Rule 11 would be exercised for settlement after hearing all concerned parties? and (vii) Cost/Fee/Expenses of IRP/RP in case of settlement before constitution of CoC.

CIRP withdrawal application u/s 12A of IBC cannot be kept pending for constitution of CoC, CIRP Regulation 30A provides a complete mechanism for withdrawal applications being entertained before constitution of CoC and no requirement to hear any other concerned parties except OC/FC, CD & IRP – Abhishek Singh Vs. Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top