492

NCLAT affirms decision of NCLT on rejection of claim due to delayed in filing claim due to not aware about Liquidation Order – The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kshitiz Chhawchharia, Liquidator, Concast Steel & Power Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Liquidation Order against the Corporate Debtor was passed on 26.09.2018. The last date was submission of claim was 26.10.2018. The Appellant filed its Claim before the Liquidator on 16.08.2022. (after more than three and a half years). The only reason mentioned by the Appellant was that they were not aware of the Liquidation Order, hence the delay was caused in filing the Claim. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the I.A. filed by the Appellant. Hon’ble NCLAT upholds the decision the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal is dismissed.

NCLAT affirms decision of NCLT on rejection of claim due to delayed in filing claim due to not aware about Liquidation Order – The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kshitiz Chhawchharia, Liquidator, Concast Steel & Power Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Issue of pre-existing dispute in Section 9 application cannot be raised in Appeal before NCLAT when the Corporate Debtor has not taken any step regarding filing of the reply – Indotech Industrial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vishal Steels – NCLAT New Delhi

Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, who on the date when the matter was heard appeared and asked for time from the NCLT but did not file reply in the CIRP application u/s 9 of IBC which was ultimately admitted, filed this appeal submitting that there was pre-existing dispute and Operational Creditor has not disclosed the said submission in the application and they should be punished under Section 76.

NCLAT held that the Corporate Debtor had appeared in the proceedings in the year 2022. For more than a year neither reply has been filed nor any step was taken by the Corporate Debtor regarding filing of the Reply. The Corporate Debtor choose to watch the proceedings and took a chance. No objection having been filed by the Corporate Debtor, the submission made by the Counsel for the Appellant regarding pre-existing dispute cannot be examined nor can be raised in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.

Issue of pre-existing dispute in Section 9 application cannot be raised in Appeal before NCLAT when the Corporate Debtor has not taken any step regarding filing of the reply – Indotech Industrial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vishal Steels – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Resolution Plan furnished by one or other Resolution Applicant is a confidential one & it cannot be disclosed to any Competing Resolution Applicant nor any view can be taken or objection can be asked for from other Resolution Applicants in regard to one or the other Resolution Plan – CoC of Meenakshi Energy Ltd. Through State Bank of India Vs. Consortium of Prudent ARC Limited & Vizag Minerals and Logistics P Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Bench

In this case, NCLAT has clarified various issue such as need of speed of CIRP, Observance of Time Frame, Adjudicating Authority’s Power, Effect of Non-Observance of Time Line, Resolution Professional’s Duty, Confidentiality of Plan etc.

Resolution Plan furnished by one or other Resolution Applicant is a confidential one & it cannot be disclosed to any Competing Resolution Applicant nor any view can be taken or objection can be asked for from other Resolution Applicants in regard to one or the other Resolution Plan – CoC of Meenakshi Energy Ltd. Through State Bank of India Vs. Consortium of Prudent ARC Limited & Vizag Minerals and Logistics P Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top