600

The decision as to whether the Corporate Debtor is to be revived or not is essentially a business decision and hence should be left to the CoC – SAJ Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Priyanka Chouhan Liquidator – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 47 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Though the concept of time value of money has not been expressly defined in the IBC, ordinarily understood, time value of money is not only a regular or timely return received for the duration for which the amount is disbursed as an amount in addition to the principal, but also covers any other form of benefit or value accruing to the creditor as a return for providing money for a long duration.
(ii) In the statutory framework of the IBC, there is only limited review available which can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority without trespassing upon the business decision of the majority of the CoC. The decision as to whether the Corporate Debtor is to be revived or not is essentially a business decision and hence should be left to the CoC so long as it musters more than 66% vote share. And it is here that primacy of the commercial wisdom of the CoC comes into play.
(iii) There can be no fetters on the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The supremacy of commercial wisdom of the CoC has been reaffirmed time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not for the Adjudicating Authority to consider or evaluate on merits the rationale underlying the commercial decision of the CoC.

The decision as to whether the Corporate Debtor is to be revived or not is essentially a business decision and hence should be left to the CoC – SAJ Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Priyanka Chouhan Liquidator – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

At end of e-auction, if two or more bidders have finally offered the same amount, bidder who has given offer for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern shall be declared as successful bidder – Arrhum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vineeta Maheshwari Liquidator of Kaneria Granito Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

/ 6 minutes of reading

The Adjudicating Authority held that during the entire e-auction process, if any party did not raise its offer by a certain sum of money that it is not sufficient to reject its bid unless and until its final offer is considered. Ultimately, the result of e-auction would depend on as to what amount is offered finally by the party taking part in the auction process. In this case, at end of e-auction both the Applicant and successful bidder have finally offered the same amount but the Applicant had offered the amount to purchase the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. It is true that the Applicant ought to have raised the amount of Rs. 5 Lakh but in our considered opinion, the liquidator ought to have taken into consideration of the broad object of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and it was the pre-condition for e-auction set out by the liquidator herself.
It is the object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 i.e., to maximize the value of the assets of the corporate person and to promote entrepreneurship etc. It is not the object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 only to clear the debts of the creditors of such a corporate person. It is the duty of the liquidator to protect the existence of the Corporate Debtor as far as possible and avoid its death by ultimately pushing the Corporate Debtor to be dissolved.

At end of e-auction, if two or more bidders have finally offered the same amount, bidder who has given offer for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern shall be declared as successful bidder – Arrhum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vineeta Maheshwari Liquidator of Kaneria Granito Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

J N Arora Trading Company Vs. Ashok Kriplani, RP of Nibula Print and Pack Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 2 minutes of reading

The Appellant filed his claim much after the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Professional refused to accept the claim of the Appellant. Appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority, which has been rejected. The Appellant submits that with regard to certain Government claims Resolution Professional himself has requested to AA to accept belatedly.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal holding that with regard to Government claims there is different obligation of the Resolution Professional and to fulfil the said obligation in event he has made request to the AA, we see that no parity can be claimed by the Appellant with regard to such an order.

J N Arora Trading Company Vs. Ashok Kriplani, RP of Nibula Print and Pack Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge in an international arbitration matter is appealable to the Division Bench or to put it otherwise, whether the intra-court appeal would lie because of the Letters Patent – Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd & Anr. – Supreme Court

/ 24 minutes of reading

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

Whether an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge in an international arbitration matter is appealable to the Division Bench or to put it otherwise, whether the intra-court appeal would lie because of the Letters Patent – Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top