1059

Can a flat, without a conveyance deed but based solely on the registered Agreement for Sale and full payment made by the homebuyers prior to commencement of CIRP, be excluded from the assets of the Corporate Debtor? – Mr. Rajkumar Jhawar and Anr. Vs. Mr. Arun Kapoor RP of Monarch Brookfields LLP and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the contention of Applicants claiming marketable title to the said Flat without a conveyance deed but based on the Agreement for sale solely because the document is registered and full payment has been made is totally unsustainable.

Can a flat, without a conveyance deed but based solely on the registered Agreement for Sale and full payment made by the homebuyers prior to commencement of CIRP, be excluded from the assets of the Corporate Debtor? – Mr. Rajkumar Jhawar and Anr. Vs. Mr. Arun Kapoor RP of Monarch Brookfields LLP and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

NCLT imposes cost on Operational Creditor on inflating the rate of interest to bring Operational Debt under the threshold limit envisaged under section 4 of IBC – Sun Printers v. OMICS International Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) Strangely, the petition is completely silent on the “basis”, for claiming interest @24% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs 68,96,128/.
(ii) The sole purpose behind inflating the rate of interest to 24% p.a. is to bring the subject operational debt under the threshold limit envisaged under section 4 of IB Code and not because of any agreed clause or agreement between the parties.
(iii) The petitioner’s purported claim of existence of the operational debt allegedly due and defaulted, by the respondent will not attract section 9 of IB Code, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority.
(iv) The petitioner can be subjected to cost in this case.

NCLT imposes cost on Operational Creditor on inflating the rate of interest to bring Operational Debt under the threshold limit envisaged under section 4 of IBC – Sun Printers v. OMICS International Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

In case cheque issued prior to admission of CIRP and presented for encashment after admission of or during CIRP, Promoters/Directors of Corporate Debtor being natural persons, cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of NI Act and P. Mohanraj & Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat does not apply – Govind Prasad Todi and Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court holds that in P. Mohanraj, 51 cheques were issued by the company in favour of the respondent towards amounts payable from 21.09.2015 to 11.11.2016. On 31.03.2017, the respondent issued a statutory demand notice under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order admitting the application was passed on 06.06.2017 by the Adjudicating Authority directing commencement of the CIRP with respect to the company and putting a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the IBC. Hence in judgment of P.Mohanraj, the moratorium commenced from 06.06.2017. Prior to that not only the cheques had bounced but demand notices were also issued. In the present case, prior to presentation of cheques, not only the mortarium kicked in but the IRP had also sent the effective letter. As a result, the cheques became incapable of encashment.

In case cheque issued prior to admission of CIRP and presented for encashment after admission of or during CIRP, Promoters/Directors of Corporate Debtor being natural persons, cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of NI Act and P. Mohanraj & Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat does not apply – Govind Prasad Todi and Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Application under Section 7 of IBC can be initiated when a default has occurred and there is no such provision that the occurrence of default can be taken into account from the date of NPA – Mr. Abhay Narendra Lodha Vs. Bank of Baroda – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has categorically held that Trigger for Initiation of CIRP by a Financial Creditor is the date of “default” on the part of the Corporate Debtor i.e. actual non-payment of debt repayable by the Corporate Debtor when a debt has become due and payable and not the date of NPA. With regard to the aforesaid finding, a beneficial reference is drawn in the matter of Laxmipat Surana Vs. Union Bank of India (2021) ibclaw.in 53 SC whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the date of default is to be reckoned for the purpose of Initiation of CIRP and not the date of NPA.

Application under Section 7 of IBC can be initiated when a default has occurred and there is no such provision that the occurrence of default can be taken into account from the date of NPA – Mr. Abhay Narendra Lodha Vs. Bank of Baroda – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top