Simplex Infrastructures Ltd.

Since a challenge to arbitral award itself is yet to be adjudicated upon and the amount not having been crystallised both in nature and the magnitude, it does not fit the bill for filing a petition under Section 9 of IBC – Puravankara Ltd. Vs. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The entire scheme of section 9 is structured in a manner that the small vendors who are delivering goods and/or services to the Operational Creditors, if not paid by them can file a Petition under Section 9. This is not the underlying logic of filing this petition here by the Operation Creditor as he has not provided any goods or services to the Corporate Debtor and not the other way round. So therefore, this petition is not a proper mode to realise or recover the decree amount. It is thus a modus to get a decree executed or in other words recover the money deftly shrouded in the garb of a Section 9 Petition.

Since a challenge to arbitral award itself is yet to be adjudicated upon and the amount not having been crystallised both in nature and the magnitude, it does not fit the bill for filing a petition under Section 9 of IBC – Puravankara Ltd. Vs. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

NCLT dismisses application filed for defer or dismiss CIRP application on the basis of Vidarbha Judgement and levies a penalty of Rs. 1 lac – Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank – NCLT Kolkata Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench held that:
(i) Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank (2023) ibclaw.in 67 SC distinguished Vidarbha case on facts and noted that when the existence of debt and default had been proved, the NCLT is bound to admit the petition under Section 7 of the Code.
(ii) Vidarbha case could not be understood as taking a contrary position in law as opposed to Innoventive Industries [2017] ibclaw.in 02 SC case and also the case law rendered in E.S. Krishnamurthy (2021) ibclaw.in 173 SC by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
(iii) This application has been filed with an intent to derail this Tribunal from considering the Application filed by the Respondent under Section 7 of IBC This is in our view is an attempt to abuse the process of Tribunal and therefore levy a penalty of Rs. 1 Lac (Rs. One Lac only) in terms of Rule 11 of NCLT Rules 2016.

NCLT dismisses application filed for defer or dismiss CIRP application on the basis of Vidarbha Judgement and levies a penalty of Rs. 1 lac – Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top