811

The delay in refiling, after removing defects, can be condoned only if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was reasonable and justifiable cause for not refiling the appeal on time – Govardhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vaibhav Khandelwal and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the delay has to be tested on the parameters of reasonableness so that the objectives of IBC of time-bound resolution is not diluted and the interest of either of the parties involved is not prejudicially affected in any manner. The question of condoning any delay in refiling would have to be seen in the context of the explanation offered to find out whether the reasons cited were beyond the control of the Applicant and all efforts were made to overcome the delay with due diligence and utmost despatch.

The delay in refiling, after removing defects, can be condoned only if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was reasonable and justifiable cause for not refiling the appeal on time – Govardhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vaibhav Khandelwal and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

High Court sets aside award rendered by unilaterally appointed arbitrator and appoints new arbitrator to take up the arbitral proceedings at the stage of final hearing – Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs. Ram Kishan Aggarwal and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) The impermissibility of arbitral proceedings at the hands of unilaterally appointed arbitrators, derived from the provisions of Section 12 of the Act.
(ii) Just as arbitral proceedings cannot be conducted by a person who is ineligible under Section 12 of the Act, so also, they cannot be conducted by a person nominated by an ineligible person or entity.
(iii) In fact, even absent a challenge under Section 34 of the Act, an award rendered by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator has been held to be unenforceable.

High Court sets aside award rendered by unilaterally appointed arbitrator and appoints new arbitrator to take up the arbitral proceedings at the stage of final hearing – Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs. Ram Kishan Aggarwal and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Under Section 25(1) of IBC, Resolution Professional is empowered to reject CoC proposal for renewal of Bank Guarantees provided by Corporate Debtor – IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Mr. Sumit Binani, RP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

In this landmark decision, the appellant banks challenged the decision of the RP for non-renewing custom bank guarantee issued by the banks which was dismissed by NCLT, Hyderabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) As per Sections 25(1), 20(1) read with Section 23(2) of the Code, the RP is duty bound to make every effort to preserve the assets and value of the property of the Corporate Debtor Company and manage it effectively as a ‘Going Concern’.
(ii) Section 15(3) of the Code provides that any costs incurred by the RP in running the business of the Corporate Debtor as a ‘Going Concern’ forms part of the CIRP costs.
(iii) Under Section 25(1), the RP is empowered to reject the CoC proposal for renewal of the Bank Guarantees provided by the Corporate Debtor Company, prior to the initiation of the CIRP as renewing those would not consequently lead to any advantage or any valuable gains.

Under Section 25(1) of IBC, Resolution Professional is empowered to reject CoC proposal for renewal of Bank Guarantees provided by Corporate Debtor – IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Mr. Sumit Binani, RP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Whether liquidation value is required to be provided to every individual Home buyer under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) in the capacity of a dissenting Financial Creditor – Mrs. Renu Kapoor & Ors. Vs. Shailesh Verma & Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held that in order to deal with the question that fell for consideration, it is pertinent to note that Homebuyers, essentially, constitute a different class of creditors distinct from the other Financial creditors. Individual Homebuyers may have divergent views but ultimately, they vote as a class and individuals therein cannot claim to be ‘dissenting financial creditors’ if they vote against the Resolution Plan.

The Adjudicating Authority referred Jaypee Kensington judgment and held that since Individual Homebuyers cannot be called as dissenting Financial Creditors, the question of providing separate liquidation values to each Homebuyer under Section 30 of the Code does not arise.

Whether liquidation value is required to be provided to every individual Home buyer under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) in the capacity of a dissenting Financial Creditor – Mrs. Renu Kapoor & Ors. Vs. Shailesh Verma & Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

If there is a common source of control over both the entities, it cannot be denied that the two entities become associated for that reason – Dr. Gopal Krishnan MS Vs. Mr. Ravindra Beleyur RP of M/s Yashomati Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

Issues before Appellate Tribunal

(I) Whether the debt claimed by appellants can be considered as financial debt u/s 5(8) of the Code 2016?

(II) Whether the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was incorrect holding the Appellants as related parties keeping in view provisions on Code 2016 and IBBI rules and regulations?

(III) Whether the Resolution Plan was approved correctly when no provision had been made for the claims of the Appellants?

If there is a common source of control over both the entities, it cannot be denied that the two entities become associated for that reason – Dr. Gopal Krishnan MS Vs. Mr. Ravindra Beleyur RP of M/s Yashomati Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top