Aircel Cellular Ltd.

Can a New Resolution Applicant be brought in or substituted with another Resolution Applicant, after approval of a Resolution Plan u/s 31 of IBC? – UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Aircel Ltd. – Supreme Court

A 3-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of NCLAT where NCLAT fully agreed with the reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for substituting another Resolution Applicant in place of the Appellant. When plan of the Appellant as Resolution Applicant was approved, the Adjudicating Authority rightly refused to substitute another Resolution Applicant, in which order no infirmity is found

Can a New Resolution Applicant be brought in or substituted with another Resolution Applicant, after approval of a Resolution Plan u/s 31 of IBC? – UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Aircel Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Once the resolution plan stands approved by the NCLT, all claims stand frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, survives – Aircel Cellular Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Madras High Court

In this case the claims of the operational creditors including Government dues (including the dues of the Department of Telecommunications) was quantified at an amount of Rs.2,703.96 Crores. From, and out of the same, an amount of Rs.27.85 Crores was admitted, and the amount provided under the plan is Rs.0.25 Crores, being 0.01% of the amount claimed. With the approval of the resolution plan on 09.06.2020 by NCLT, Mumbai Bench-II, the claims of the respondents, that is, the Department of Telecommunications have been duly taken note of by the NCLT.

 Hon’ble High Court referring judgments in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons and Ruchi Soya Industries held that once the resolution plan stands approved by the NCLT, all claims stand frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, survives. In the present case, the claim of the respondents has not only been noted, but also has been accepted, in part.

Once the resolution plan stands approved by the NCLT, all claims stand frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, survives – Aircel Cellular Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Madras High Court Read Post »

The proceedings under the IBC cannot be pressed into service to dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to re-open the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) – Madras High Court

The High Court held that the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be interpreted in a manner which is inconsistent with any other law in the time being in force. Therefore, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan sanctioned and approved cannot impinge on the rights of the Income Tax Department to pass any fresh Assessment Order under Section 148 read with Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be pressed into service to dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department under the Income Tax Act, 1961 to re-open the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In my view, the Income Tax Department was not precluded from reopening the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Therefore, these Writ Petitions filed by these petitioners have to be dismissed. The Assessment Orders which have been passed pursuant to the interim order dated 27.12.2018 are directed to be given to the respective petitioners by the respondent, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The proceedings under the IBC cannot be pressed into service to dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to re-open the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) – Madras High Court Read Post »

If a claim was never filed during CIRP, there was no question of considering the same in the Resolution Plan – The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs. Mr. Vijaykumar V. Iyer RP of Dishnet Wireless Limited – NCLAT New Delhi

This Appeal was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise against the Impugned Order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 2- UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. It was submitted that the Appellant had no notice of the CIRP.

NCLAT referring Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 54 SC, held that we do not find any reason to entertain these Appeals. Even if the Resolution Plan has been challenged in other Appeals by other entities succeeds, fact would still remain that the claims of the Appellants were never filed during CIRPs and thus there was no question of considering the same in the Resolution Plan. As regards the observations made with regard to Clause 9.1.4, with or without the observations, Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is clear and binding. The Department of the Appellant will have to follow Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

If a claim was never filed during CIRP, there was no question of considering the same in the Resolution Plan – The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs. Mr. Vijaykumar V. Iyer RP of Dishnet Wireless Limited – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

In the event of spectrum being subjected to proceedings under IBC, protection would be available to Telecom Licences and spectrum under Section 14(1) of the Code – Union of India Vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer – NCLAT New Delhi

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

In the event of spectrum being subjected to proceedings under IBC, protection would be available to Telecom Licences and spectrum under Section 14(1) of the Code – Union of India Vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The role of an Asset Reconstruction Company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in the context of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court

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

The role of an Asset Reconstruction Company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in the context of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether spectrum can be subjected to proceedings under the Code? and other various questions should first be considered by the NCLT – Union of India Vs. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India Etc. – SC

The following three questions arise for consideration:
(1) Whether spectrum can be subjected to proceedings under the Code?

(2) In the case of sharing, how the payment is to be made by the Telecom Service Provider (for short, ‘TSP’)? and

(3) In the case of trading, how the liability of the seller and buyer is to be determined?

Whether spectrum can be subjected to proceedings under the Code? and other various questions should first be considered by the NCLT – Union of India Vs. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India Etc. – SC Read Post »

Scroll to Top