2025

Either Security Trust or Creditors may file application under Section 95 of the IBC | Whether when adequate securities are already available with the Lender, Guarantor is liable for outstanding dues? – Krishan Kumar Jajoo Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. And Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 49 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Security trustee is merely holding security in favour of the Financial Creditor or consortium of creditors and therefore either the trust or creditors may file application under Section 95 of the Code.
(ii) The Lenders, can therefore, enforce the security documents even if he is not a party to the trusteeship agreement.
(iii) Significate role of the investigations has been assigned to the Resolution Professional
(iv) The principal of natural justice could vary with different circumstances and the Adjudicating Authority is not bound to give exhausting hearing on each and every objection raised by the Personal Guarantor in the same intensity.
(v) Section 5(22) of the Code defines personal guarantor as an individual who is the surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor who provides guarantee in his personal capacity against the loans availed by the corporate debtor with co-extensive liabilities alongwith the corporate debtor.
(vi) One also need to understand that the total recovery made from the principal borrower and the personal guarantor may not exceed the outstanding debts payable to the lenders. However, it can be no one’s case that if the securities are held in favour of the lenders/ creditors based on certain charges created on the assets of the Corporate Debtor, personal guarantor should not be responsible, therefore, is no insolvency proceedings can be initiated against personal guarantor.

Either Security Trust or Creditors may file application under Section 95 of the IBC | Whether when adequate securities are already available with the Lender, Guarantor is liable for outstanding dues? – Krishan Kumar Jajoo Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. And Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

An interest clause in an invoice, without specifying the period within which the amount is to be paid and without any corresponding clause in the agreement or Purchase Order, cannot be included in calculating the threshold for admission of a Section 9 application under IBC – Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Mangesh Vitthal Kekre, IRP of Aryan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 17 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT observed that condition prescribed in the invoice is that in case of delay in payment, interest will be charged at the rate of 12 @ as per the agreed terms. This clause in the invoice is totally vague because it does not specify the period within which the amount was to be paid. Secondly, it is mentioned in this clause that interest will be charged as per the agreed terms whereas no agreed terms have seen the light of the day to enable the Operational Creditor to claim interest as a part of debt.

An interest clause in an invoice, without specifying the period within which the amount is to be paid and without any corresponding clause in the agreement or Purchase Order, cannot be included in calculating the threshold for admission of a Section 9 application under IBC – Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Mangesh Vitthal Kekre, IRP of Aryan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Refund of payment made, under protest, towards pre-CIRP electricity dues by the Successful Resolution applicant (SRA) for the restoration of the Corporate Debtor’s electricity connection – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Twentyone Sugars Ltd. – Supreme Court

/ 1 minute of reading

Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the NCLAT wherein the NCLAT directed that Electricity Company to refund payment made by SRA under protest for restoration of electricity connection ahead of upcoming sugar cane crushing season and also held that the matter falls under Section 60(50)(c) of the IBC.

Refund of payment made, under protest, towards pre-CIRP electricity dues by the Successful Resolution applicant (SRA) for the restoration of the Corporate Debtor’s electricity connection – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Twentyone Sugars Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Limitation for filing the Appeal shall commence on the date when the Order is passed and commencement of limitation shall not be suspended till the Appellant receives the copy of the Order – Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise (CGST & CE) Vs. Meera Prasad, IRP of Harihar International Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 2 minutes of reading

The law is well settled that limitation for filing the Appeal shall commence on the date when the Order is passed and commencement of limitation shall not be suspended till the Appellant receives the copy of the Order. The receipt of the copy of the Order by the Appellant cannot arrest the running of the limitation.

Limitation for filing the Appeal shall commence on the date when the Order is passed and commencement of limitation shall not be suspended till the Appellant receives the copy of the Order – Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise (CGST & CE) Vs. Meera Prasad, IRP of Harihar International Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

High Court’s direction to make pre-deposit under Section 19 of MSMED Act, 2006, in the recourse taken to the writ jurisdiction, Supreme Court upheld – Morarjee Textiles Ltd. Represented Through Mr. Ravi Sethia, IRP Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Supreme Court

/ 5 minutes of reading

Instead of availing the remedy under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 200, the appellant(s) adopted the remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226, against the award made by MSE Facilitation Council.
A direction was issued by High Court to the appellant(s) to deposit a sum equivalent to 75%.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the efficacious remedy of taking recourse to Section 19 of the 2006 Act was available to the appellant(s). Obviously to avoid the condition of pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSMED Act 2006, that the recourse was taken to the writ jurisdiction. The Award is in the nature of a money decree and, therefore, absolutely no error in the view taken by the High Court.

High Court’s direction to make pre-deposit under Section 19 of MSMED Act, 2006, in the recourse taken to the writ jurisdiction, Supreme Court upheld – Morarjee Textiles Ltd. Represented Through Mr. Ravi Sethia, IRP Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top