730

The IBC shall override Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 – Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Brighter Side Renewable Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench held that:

(i) In terms of the provision ingrained in Section 238 of the I&B Code, the Code shall override all other statutory provisions that may tend to an affect or impede a corporate insolvency resolution process initiated under the I&B Code including the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) and the Resolution Plan being already approved with waivers and concessions, granted under the I&B Code, the occupational charges that was allowed to be levied on an interim measure, until a decision is taken by the Estate Officer under the PP Act, cannot be allowed to be levied any further after approval of the Resolution Plan.
(ii) If a creditor failed to lodge its claim with the RP during the CIRP, once a resolution plan approved by CoC by requisite voting shares and subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority, all the past dues due stand waived, and the claim gets extinguished. The claims, that are not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and the proceedings related thereto shall stand terminated.

The IBC shall override Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 – Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Brighter Side Renewable Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Rejoinder was filed subsequently amendments in CIRP Regulation 2A shall not put any statutory obligation on the Appellant to file the documents of evidence of default as provided in CIRP Regulation 2A – Abhijit Sinha Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that CIRP Regulation 2A cannot come to the help of the Appellant in any manner since the Application was filed in 2019, at that time Regulation 2A was not there. The Financial Creditor was not obliged to comply the Regulation. The mere fact that Rejoinder was filed subsequently shall not put any statutory obligation on the Appellant to file the documents of evidence of default as provided in Regulation 2A. It also held that the question under admission of Section 7 Application is not as to what is correct liability of the Corporate Debtor when admission was there that the amount of more than One Crore was due, it was sufficient for admission of Section 7 Application.

Rejoinder was filed subsequently amendments in CIRP Regulation 2A shall not put any statutory obligation on the Appellant to file the documents of evidence of default as provided in CIRP Regulation 2A – Abhijit Sinha Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If the Authorized Representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents, then the association or the allottees who come under the class of creditors, shall also have no role in receipts or verification of claims of creditors – IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Through Shiv Nandan Sharma IRP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II

AA held that as per CIRP Regulation 13(2), the IRP or the RP shall make a list of creditors available for inspection by the persons, who have submitted proofs of claim or by the members, partners, directors and guarantors of the corporate debtor. It is further seen that as per CIRP Regulation 14, the IRP or the RP is also authorized under the regulation to determine the amount of claim or revise the amount of claim admitted including the estimates of the claims made under Sub Regulation 1, when she/he comes across additional information warranting such revision. A bare perusal of Regulation 16A Sub Regulation 5 of the CIRP Regulations shows that although the IRP or the RP shall provide an updated list of creditors in each class to the respective authorised representative as and when, the list is updated but the authorized representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class he represents. Since, the authorized representative is appointed under Section 21(6A) of the IBC, 2016 and his rights and duties are defined under Section 25A of IBC, 2016 referred to Supra, we observe that under Section 21(6A)(b), the authorized representative is appointed, if the class of creditors exceeds the number specified under the law.
It referred to the CIRP Regulation 16A(5), which shows that the authorized representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents. If the authorized representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents, then the association or the allottees who come under the class of creditors, in our considered view, shall also have no role in receipts or verification of claims of creditors rather it is the IRP or the RP, who is to decide the claims submitted by the creditors.

If the Authorized Representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents, then the association or the allottees who come under the class of creditors, shall also have no role in receipts or verification of claims of creditors – IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Through Shiv Nandan Sharma IRP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »

Scroll to Top