494

Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) is entitled to relief of extension of benefit of protection of Section 32A of IBC to lift the attachment under PMLA by Enforcement Directorate over the assets of the Corporate Debtor – Vantage Point Asset Pte. Ltd Vs. Gaurav Misra, RP of Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the NCLT while approving the Rplan, refused to grant prayer made by the SRA for release of the assets attached by ED under PMLA.

Hon’ble NCLAT referring judgments in Shiv Charan and Ors. vs. Adjudicating Authority and Anr. (2024) ibclaw.in 154 HC, Rajiv Chakraborty vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2022) ibclaw.in 257 HC and Manish Kumar vs. Union of India and Anr. (2021) ibclaw.in 16 SC allowed the reliefs and set aside relevant portion from the impugned order and held that the SRA is entitled to relief of extension of benefit of protection of Section 32-A to lift the attachment by Enforcement Directorate over the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) is entitled to relief of extension of benefit of protection of Section 32A of IBC to lift the attachment under PMLA by Enforcement Directorate over the assets of the Corporate Debtor – Vantage Point Asset Pte. Ltd Vs. Gaurav Misra, RP of Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Withdrawing liquidation application and allowing a Resolution Plan after decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor without issuing fresh EOI(Form G) is commercial wisdom of CoC and is cannot be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review either by NCLT or NCLAT in the exercise of its appellate powers – Anil Kumar, Suspended Director, SK Elite Industries India Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Sanghrajaka, RP, SK Elite Industries India Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this important case, CoC has withdrawn the liquidation decision and approve a Resolution Plan. Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor challenged the said decision that no fresh EOI was issued before allowing the Resolution Plan after decision of the liquidation.
NCLAT held that:
(i) Since, no settlement offer from the Appellant or resolution plan from PRAs was available before the CoC and the extended CIRP period was also coming to an end, in the given circumstances, the decision of the CoC to entertain the resolution plan from Respondent No.3 without publication of Form G cannot be viewed to be such a grave procedural non-compliance that the integrity of the entire resolution process was undermined.
(ii) No consequence of non-compliance to CIRP Regulation 36A has been provided for in the statutory construct of IBC
(iii) The language of CIRP regulation has to be read along with mandate and objective of the Code which clearly emphasizes reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate debtor in a time bound manner.
(iv) The decision as to whether the Corporate Debtor is to be revived or not by acceptance of a particular resolution plan is essentially a business decision and hence should be left to the CoC so long as it musters more than 66% vote share.
(v) When the CoC has approved a Resolution Plan by 100% voting share after considering its feasibility and viability, such decision of CoC is a commercial decision. There can be no fetters on the commercial wisdom of the CoC. It is settled law that commercial wisdom of CoC in approving the Resolution Plan is not to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review either by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers.

Withdrawing liquidation application and allowing a Resolution Plan after decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor without issuing fresh EOI(Form G) is commercial wisdom of CoC and is cannot be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review either by NCLT or NCLAT in the exercise of its appellate powers – Anil Kumar, Suspended Director, SK Elite Industries India Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Sanghrajaka, RP, SK Elite Industries India Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

There is no impediment for an Applicant to prefer an Application under section 7 of the Code, 2016 when already the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 are pending – S. Ravindranathan Ex-Director of Corporate Debtor MPL Parts and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

In this judgment, NCLAT clarified various issue on claim, default, Requisites for Admission of Application. NCALT held that there is no impediment for an Applicant to prefer an Application under section 7 of the Code, 2016 when already the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 are pending. There is no command under the Code to find out as to whether the loan was expended in relation to the affairs of the Corporate Debtor or for any other purpose. In a fixed claim, the Creditor has a right to payment of a specific amount. However, in a legal claim, the right of claimant to the payment of debt or any other payment is legally enforceable. Inability to pay debt is not sufficient to initiate the process of Insolvency Resolution. Even if a person has the ability to repay the debt, there can be a willful default.

There is no impediment for an Applicant to prefer an Application under section 7 of the Code, 2016 when already the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 are pending – S. Ravindranathan Ex-Director of Corporate Debtor MPL Parts and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top