649

Does interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC on a Partner extend to the Assets of the Partnership Firm? – Ramesh Kumar Chugh Vs. Assets Care & Construction Enterprises Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this important judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT has interpreted the Section 96 of IBC and held that:

(i) The interim moratorium under Section 96(1)(b)(ii) creates a prohibition on the other creditors of the debtor from initiating any legal action in respect of the debt for which Section 95 has been initiated.
(ii) The moratorium imposed under Section 96 of IBC, 2016, would strictly apply to the security interest created by the Appellant in his personal capacity and will not extend to the cover the subject property being the property of the partnership firm against which Section 95 had not been invoked.
(iii) The assets held in the name of the partnership firm is not the personal property of the Appellant and cannot be subjected to the provisions of interim moratorium merely because a Section 95 application has been filed against a partner of the firm in respect of a personal guarantee given for a party other than the partnership firm.
(iv) Merely because notice for dissolution of the partnership firm was given by the Appellant entailing the devolution of liabilities of the partnership on the partners, that the partnership firm can in turn be said to be saddled with the liabilities arising out of the personal guarantee of the Appellant.

Does interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC on a Partner extend to the Assets of the Partnership Firm? – Ramesh Kumar Chugh Vs. Assets Care & Construction Enterprises Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The scope and jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under IBC being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate, Suspended Director of Evirant Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) It is a settled proposition of law that to prove any transaction to be collusive and fraudulent in nature, the degree of proof and evidence required should be of unimpeachable nature and beyond reasonable doubt.
(ii) The scope and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance which have been agitated in the IA.
(iii) Allowing such meritless and unscrupulous litigation would logically entail derailing the insolvency resolution process which goes against the twin objectives of the IBC of maximization of the value of assets and time-bound insolvency resolution.
(iv) There is no infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the Financial Creditor having successfully proved the financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, Section 7 application has been admitted.
(v) Even if for arguments sake we accept the contention raised by the Appellant that there were serious internal disputes amongst the Respondents that cannot be a cogent and reasonable ground for denying the Financial Creditor their right to claim payment towards the debt owed to them by the Corporate Debtor.

The scope and jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under IBC being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate, Suspended Director of Evirant Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Shri Alok Kaushik Erstwhile RP of Cheema Spintex Ltd. Vs. Cheema Spintex – NCLAT New Delhi

The issues for determination in this appeal is:

(a) whether in light of the admitted fact that the IRP himself filed the CIRP withdrawal application on 18/10/2021 which was just 12 days after commencement of the CIRP, whether it was justified on the part of the IRP to still continue with the CIRP proceedings;

(b) whether the Adjudicating Authority had erred in disallowing certain CIRP expenses claimed by the Appellant/IRP by treating them as “non-essential”; and

(c) whether the remarks disapproving the conduct of the IRP in the present matter by the Adjudicating Authority stands to reason.

Shri Alok Kaushik Erstwhile RP of Cheema Spintex Ltd. Vs. Cheema Spintex – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Mr. Navneet Kumar Gupta, RP for SEL Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Consortium of ARR ESS Industries Private Limited And Leading Edge Commercial FZE – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

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

Mr. Navneet Kumar Gupta, RP for SEL Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Consortium of ARR ESS Industries Private Limited And Leading Edge Commercial FZE – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top