IBC-Case Laws

Can a Corporate Debtor file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after filing a reply to an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)? – Century Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Religare Finvest Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Right to move Section 8 Application was forfeited since Corporate Debtor did not choose to file the Application.
(ii) Whether Arbitration Proceedings are pending on the date when Section 7 Application is filed or it is sought to be initiated subsequent to filing of Section 7 Application is immaterial.
(iii) By not filing of Application under Section 8 at the time of filing of a Reply to Section 7, Corporate Debtor has forfeited his right to file his Application under Section 8.
(iv) Arbitration Proceeding which were initiated by Financial Creditor are still pending, that neither preclude the Financial Creditor from filing a Section 7 Application nor preclude the Adjudicating Authority to proceed to consider the debt and default in Section 7 Application.

Can a Corporate Debtor file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after filing a reply to an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)? – Century Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Religare Finvest Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

A purchaser backing out from the transaction the consequences as available in law have to followed and take recourse – Kuldeep Verma Vs. Government of Kerala and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

The liquidator proposed sale of the shares of subsidiary company to Govt. of Keral which was approved by NCLT. However, Govt. of Kerala backed out from the purchase of the shares.

Hon’ble NCLAT held that a purchaser backing out from the transaction the consequences as available in law have to followed and take recourse, but no direction could be issued to compel the State to purchase the share.

A purchaser backing out from the transaction the consequences as available in law have to followed and take recourse – Kuldeep Verma Vs. Government of Kerala and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The issue of the extent of Limited Guarantee is to be decided at the time of finalisation of Payment Plan, not at Section 95 application admission stage – Nilay R. Shah Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Personal Guarantor challenged insolvency admission order passed under Section 95 of IBC on the ground of limited Guarantee.

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that the Application has only been admitted and the payments Plan have yet to be finalised. The said question is to be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of finalisation of the payment Plan.

The issue of the extent of Limited Guarantee is to be decided at the time of finalisation of Payment Plan, not at Section 95 application admission stage – Nilay R. Shah Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can a Power of Attorney (PoA) executed in favor of the Directors of a Corporate Debtor for carrying out development be canceled by Resolution Plan? – Dharmesh Jain Vs. Jayesh Sanghrajka and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCAT held that when PoA which was given for a particular purpose to the Appellant as nominee of the corporate debtor and Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC of the corporate debtor, the approval of the Resolution Plan is in commercial wisdom of the CoC and in event, the Resolution Plan declare the PoA which was given in favour of the Appellant as nominee of the corporate debtor as cancelled, the said clause of the Resolution Plan cannot be allowed to be challenged by the Appellant nor Appellant was given any rights in the subject property so as to assert any right.

Can a Power of Attorney (PoA) executed in favor of the Directors of a Corporate Debtor for carrying out development be canceled by Resolution Plan? – Dharmesh Jain Vs. Jayesh Sanghrajka and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Development Rights are also fully covered by the definition of Property under Section 3(27) of the IBC – Nilesh Sharma RP – Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mordhwaj Singh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the definition under Section 3(27) of the Property is an inclusive definition which obviously includes the Development Rights which was obtained by the Developers from the Owners by Development Agreement dated 03.03.2007 were subsequently assigned to the Corporate Debtor by an Agreement dated 30.07.2010. The Developer was handed over the possession in pursuance of Consent Award dated 05.09 2009.

Development Rights are also fully covered by the definition of Property under Section 3(27) of the IBC – Nilesh Sharma RP – Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mordhwaj Singh and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If CIRP having come to an end and liquidation has not been ordered, no further steps are required to be taken by RP, CIRP proceedings may be treated to be closed and Resolution Professional cannot file application for dissolution under Section 54 of IBC | RP can intimate the RoC for striking off the name of Corporate Debtor from the Register of the Companies – Janak Jagjivan Shah RP Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CoC of Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) CIRP having been unsuccessful and no liquidation order having been passed, recourse to Section 54 of IBC, could not have been taken by the RP
(ii) When the entity, who has initiated the CIRP is not ready to proceed any further and CIRP period having already come to an end, no further steps were required in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and RP could have closed the matter by intimating the Registrar of Companies for striking off the name of Company from the Register of the Companies.
(iii) The CIRP having come to an end and liquidation has not been ordered, no further steps are required to be taken by the RP. The CIRP proceedings may be treated to be closed.

If CIRP having come to an end and liquidation has not been ordered, no further steps are required to be taken by RP, CIRP proceedings may be treated to be closed and Resolution Professional cannot file application for dissolution under Section 54 of IBC | RP can intimate the RoC for striking off the name of Corporate Debtor from the Register of the Companies – Janak Jagjivan Shah RP Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CoC of Rainbow Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Till the reference is answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the law laid down in the matter of India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr. has to be followed – SMFG India Credit Co. Ltd. Vs. (CA) Kshitiz Gupta, RP Aditya Vidyut Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

(2024) ibclaw.in 689 NCLAT IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPrincipal Bench, New Delhi SMFG India Credit Co. Ltd.v.(CA) Kshitiz

Till the reference is answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the law laid down in the matter of India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr. has to be followed – SMFG India Credit Co. Ltd. Vs. (CA) Kshitiz Gupta, RP Aditya Vidyut Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top