446

The Operational Creditor needs to be put to strict proof to establish the date of default – Manishaas Infratecho Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhonu Hulshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that mere insertion of any date in the Section 8 demand notice or in the Section 9 application does not make that date of default valid and binding especially when there is no agreement between the two parties as to what shall constitute an event of default. In the absence of any agreement available on record, the alleged date of default cannot be whimsically and arbitrarily decided by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor needs to be put to strict proof to establish the date of default.

The Operational Creditor needs to be put to strict proof to establish the date of default – Manishaas Infratecho Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhonu Hulshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

There can be differential payment in payment of debts of Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, however, there can be no difference in payment within a class of creditors – Akashganga Processors Pvt. Ltd Vs. Shri Ravindra Kumar Goyal & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT modified the order of the AA by approving Resolution Plan in M/s. Polycoat India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Debtor and held that there can be no dispute to the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [2019] ibclaw.in 07 SC where it was held that there can be differential payment in payment of debts of Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, however, there can be no difference in inter se payment within a class of creditors.

There can be differential payment in payment of debts of Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, however, there can be no difference in payment within a class of creditors – Akashganga Processors Pvt. Ltd Vs. Shri Ravindra Kumar Goyal & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If 330 days completes and the Resolution Applicant failed to implement the plan, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have passed the Order of Liquidation as per the provision of the Code, 2016 – R. Velu Chairman, Monitoring Committee RP For Palm Lagoon Backwater Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that if 330 days completes and the Resolution Applicant failed to implement the plan, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have passed the Order of Liquidation as per the provision of the Code, 2016. This Tribunal is not going into the aspect with regard to the forfeiture of the performance security and withdrawal of the plan. This Tribunal confines to the reliefs sought by the Appellant before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority which was not adhere to.  The Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority is contravened by the concerned Corporate Debtor, “any person” other than the Corporate Debtor may make an Application to the Adjudicating Authority for a Liquidation Order.(p20-22)

If 330 days completes and the Resolution Applicant failed to implement the plan, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have passed the Order of Liquidation as per the provision of the Code, 2016 – R. Velu Chairman, Monitoring Committee RP For Palm Lagoon Backwater Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Application u/s 9 has been rejected in terms of Section 8(1) of the IBC, the Petitioner has neither enclosed the invoices nor sent the notice in Form-4 – Daval Industries Private Limited Vs. Wholly Joy Products Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II

The Adjudicating Authority noticed that in this case, the claim of the applicant is based upon the invoices but it appears from the demand notice that the applicant has not enclosed the invoices rather in column VII of Form 3, the petitioner has mentioned that “true copy of dishonoured cheques along with the corresponding bank memos are annexed herewith collectively as Annexure-A’ and no other document is enclosed. This means that in terms of Section 8(1) of the IBC, the Petitioner has neither enclosed the invoices nor sent the notice in Form-4. Rather it sent the demand notice in Form-3. Therefore, in the light of the decision in Neeraj Jain Director of M/s Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2020] ibclaw.in 221 NCLAT, the demand notice delivered in the present case is not a valid one in terms of Section 8(1) of IBC, 2016 read with Rule 5(1)(b) of the the AAA Rules, 2016. Hence in our view, the valid demand notice has not been delivered by the Petitioner before filing the present application under Section 9 of the IBC.

Application u/s 9 has been rejected in terms of Section 8(1) of the IBC, the Petitioner has neither enclosed the invoices nor sent the notice in Form-4 – Daval Industries Private Limited Vs. Wholly Joy Products Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »

Scroll to Top