444

Can Financial Creditor change date of default through rejoinder affidavit in the application filed under Section 95 of IBC against Personal Guarantor? – Sanjeeb Ranjeet Das Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT has dismissed an appeal filed by Personal Guarantor on change of default by PNB in the application filed under Section 95 of IBC.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that it is well settled that Financial Creditor is permitted to supplement the Application by filing the additional documents.

The Bench also observed that the Adjudicating Authority has also granted time to the Personal Guarantor to file reply to the amended petition and to oppose the new date of default to be inserted by the Creditor.

Can Financial Creditor change date of default through rejoinder affidavit in the application filed under Section 95 of IBC against Personal Guarantor? – Sanjeeb Ranjeet Das Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the period of 180 days prescribed under Regulation 21A(2)(b) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (Secured Creditor can realize the amount) can be extended? – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. The Liquidator of M/s. Koyenco Autos Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kochi Bench

In this important judgment, NCLT Kochi Bench held that the word “shall” has been used in Regulation 21A (2), apart from this Regulation 21A(3) provides the consequences of non-compliance of direction provided in Regulation 21A(2)(b), accordingly on the expiry of 180 days if the secured creditor failed to realize the amount and paid to the liquidator the secured asset automatically shall vests with the Liquidator as part of liquidation estate. Here also the word “shall” have been used. In the scenario it is evident that the period mentioned in Regulation 21A(2)(b) is mandatory, hence the period of 180 days prescribed under Regulation 21A(2)(b) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 cannot be extended.

Whether the period of 180 days prescribed under Regulation 21A(2)(b) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (Secured Creditor can realize the amount) can be extended? – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. The Liquidator of M/s. Koyenco Autos Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kochi Bench Read Post »

The primary and operative requirement of Section 5(21) of IBC, ‘Operational Debt’ is that the claim must bear some nexus with a provision of goods or services irrespective of who is to be the supplier or receiver – Manoj Stone Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Railsys Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that from a plain reading of the Section 5(20) and Section 5(21), it is clear that the primary and operative requirement of Section 5(21) is that the claim must bear some nexus with a provision of goods or services irrespective of who is to be the supplier or receiver. Further the Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016 under Rule 5(1) provides that any operational creditor can issue a notice in relation to an operational debt either through a demand notice or copy of invoices. Also, an operational creditor who is seeking to claim an operational debt in a CIRP can rely either on a contract or on an invoice for the supply of goods and services with the corporate debtor under Regulation 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CIRP Regulations 2016. Thus, all forms of contracts for the supply of goods or services between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor are included in this.

The primary and operative requirement of Section 5(21) of IBC, ‘Operational Debt’ is that the claim must bear some nexus with a provision of goods or services irrespective of who is to be the supplier or receiver – Manoj Stone Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Railsys Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top