488

All about ‘Not Readily Realisable Assets(NRRA)’, valuation of PUFE Assets, who can pursue avoidance applications after assignment of NRRA, jurisdiction of NCLT after transfer of NRRA, When can NRRA be transferred to third party under Regulation 37A of Liquidation Regulations, 2017 – Inquest Fintech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Maya Gupta Liquidator Rain Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II

In this important judgment, NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II comprising of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Shri L.N. Gupta has clarified various issues on transfer/assignment of ‘Not Readily Realisable Assets(NRRA)’ during the liquidation process under IBC such as:
(i) Valuation of “Not readily realisable assets” (NRRA) underlying the pending PUFE Applications are contingent assets
(ii) Who can pursue avoidance /PUFE Applications after the assignment of NRRA?
(iii) Objective of avoidance/ PUFE applications filed u/s 43, 45, 50, and 66 of IBC 2016
(iv) Whether Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Avoidance/ PUFE Applications pursued by a Third Party or an Assignee when even the proceedings under Sections 43, 45, 50, and 66 are not concluded?
(v) When NRRA can be assigned/transferred to third party u/r 37A of the Liquidation Regulations?

All about ‘Not Readily Realisable Assets(NRRA)’, valuation of PUFE Assets, who can pursue avoidance applications after assignment of NRRA, jurisdiction of NCLT after transfer of NRRA, When can NRRA be transferred to third party under Regulation 37A of Liquidation Regulations, 2017 – Inquest Fintech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Maya Gupta Liquidator Rain Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »

Whether NCLT has jurisdiction to initiate insolvency u/s 95 of IBC against a Personal Guarantor even in CIRP against the Corporate Debtor is pending (not admitted) or withdrawn on settlement – Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Personal Guarantor of Gati Infrastructure Bhamsey Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

In the present case, the CIRP proceedings against the Corporate Debtor were pending on the date when the petition was filed before the Adjudicating Authority by the Financial Creditor and on the date when the impugned order came to be passed, as on date, they continued to be pending.
NCLAT Chennai Bench held that:
(i) It cannot be gainsaid that the pendency of the CIRP proceedings, against the Corporate Debtor is not a condition precedent for initiation of insolvency proceedings against the Personal Guarantor. Therefore, it is crystalline clear that the insolvency proceedings can be initiated against the Personal Guarantor of a Corporate Debtor, even if, no insolvency proceedings are pending against the Corporate Debtor.
(ii) It is well settled by now, that the insolvency Proceedings can be initiated against the Personal Guarantor, even when no proceedings are pending against the Corporate Debtor.
(iii) And concluded that the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to entertain/initiate the insolvency proceedings of the Personal Guarantors even when no CIRP proceedings is pending against the Corporate Debtor and in any event, the CIRP proceedings is pending and continued to be pending, against the Corporate Debtor.

Whether NCLT has jurisdiction to initiate insolvency u/s 95 of IBC against a Personal Guarantor even in CIRP against the Corporate Debtor is pending (not admitted) or withdrawn on settlement – Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Personal Guarantor of Gati Infrastructure Bhamsey Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top