599

Closure and lockout notice issued by Corporate Debtor under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prior to initiation of the CIRP cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority under IBC – Era Labourer Union of Sidcul, Pant Nagar, through its secretary Vs. Apex Buildsys Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the closure/lockout notice which was issued on 31.07.2017 much prior to initiation of the CIRP and the closure and lockout notice was nothing to do with the CIRP process. Challenge to the closure and lockout notice cannot be raised before the Adjudicating Authority who is not competent to adjudicate the said issue which arises out of the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Closure and lockout notice issued by Corporate Debtor under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prior to initiation of the CIRP cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority under IBC – Era Labourer Union of Sidcul, Pant Nagar, through its secretary Vs. Apex Buildsys Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the mobilization advance given to a Corporate Debtor is a Financial Debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of IBC or is an Operational Debt within the meaning of Section 5(21) of the Code – Athena Demwe Power Ltd. Through its RP, Mr. Umesh Garg Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Following are two issues which need to be considered:

(i) Whether the mobilization advance given by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor is a Financial Debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code;

(ii) Whether the mobilization advance given by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor is an Operational Debt within the meaning of Section 5(21) of the Code.

NCLAT concluded that claim of the Appellant is to be treated as an Operational Debt and the Resolution Applicant is under obligation to include the claim of the Appellant as an Operational Debt and make payment to the Appellant also as an Operational Creditor. In result, this Appeal is allowed.

Whether the mobilization advance given to a Corporate Debtor is a Financial Debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of IBC or is an Operational Debt within the meaning of Section 5(21) of the Code – Athena Demwe Power Ltd. Through its RP, Mr. Umesh Garg Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLT allows intervention application of Rishima SA Investments LLC (Mauritius) for Arbitral Awards passed by the arbitral tribunal seated in Singapore in ICC – Rishima SA Investments LLC (Mauritius) Vs. Srishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

NCLT allows intervention application of Rishima SA Investments LLC (Mauritius) for Arbitral Awards passed by the arbitral tribunal seated in Singapore in ICC – Rishima SA Investments LLC (Mauritius) Vs. Srishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

In the Resolution Plan itself there was a clause that Resolution Plan can be modified with 70% vote, is commercial decision of the CoC and Adjudicating Authority cannot not interfere – Rakesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Appellant submits that in the Resolution Plan itself there was a clause that Resolution can be modified with 70% vote. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application observing that Tribunal shall not interfere in the commercial wisdom of the CoC. NCLAT held that we see no reason to entertain this appeal. We, however, grant liberty to the Appellant to submit a representation to the CoC for its consideration of modified resolution.

In the Resolution Plan itself there was a clause that Resolution Plan can be modified with 70% vote, is commercial decision of the CoC and Adjudicating Authority cannot not interfere – Rakesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top