01/01/2025

Delayed claim post approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC cannot be accepted – Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Rajasthan Vs. Mamta Binani – NCLT Kolkata Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench held that as per Regulation 12 of IBBI (CIRP Regulations, 2016), a creditor shall submit claim with proof on or before the last date mentioned of the public announcement, failing which, he/she can submit the claim up to the date of issue of request for resolution plans under Regulation 36B or 90 days from the insolvency commencement date whichever is later. The Hon’ble Tribunal has consistently held that such delayed claim post approval of the resolution plan by the CoC cannot be accepted.

Delayed claim post approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC cannot be accepted – Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Rajasthan Vs. Mamta Binani – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Can Suspended Board of Directors challenge the Resolution Plan once it is approved by the CoC? – Mr. Shivkumar Malaghan and Anr. Vs. RP, Mr. Ritesh R. Mahajan and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLT Bengaluru Bench observes that it is a well settled principle that the suspended board of directors do not have the locus standi to object to the approval of the resolution plan which has been approved by the majority of the CoC members.

The Hon’ble Tribunal referred the judgment in Ramesh Kesavan v. CA Jasin George, (2024) ibclaw.in 19 NCLAT and Ravi Shankar Vedam vs. Tiffins Bartyes Abestos and Paints Limited and Others (2023) ibclaw.in 394 NCLAT.

Can Suspended Board of Directors challenge the Resolution Plan once it is approved by the CoC? – Mr. Shivkumar Malaghan and Anr. Vs. RP, Mr. Ritesh R. Mahajan and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Appointment of an Independent Administrator to supervise, manage, regulate and control the accounts and affairs of the Company – Mr. Randhir Hebbar and Anr. Vs. Convergytics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

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

Appointment of an Independent Administrator to supervise, manage, regulate and control the accounts and affairs of the Company – Mr. Randhir Hebbar and Anr. Vs. Convergytics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

The timeline specified under CIRP Regulation 35A is directive, not mandatory – Ritesh R. Mahajan Vs. Mr. Shivkumar Malaghan and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

The primary objection of the Respondent is that the RP has not filed this application u/s 66 of the Code within a period of 135 days as prescribed under Regulation 35-A of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016. In this connection, reliance is placed on the Judgments of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Aditya Kumar Tibrewal RP v. Om Prakash Pandey reported at (2022) ibclaw.in 278 NCLAT in Order dated 06.04.2022, according to which the Regulation 35-A is not mandatory and is only directory in nature.

The timeline specified under CIRP Regulation 35A is directive, not mandatory – Ritesh R. Mahajan Vs. Mr. Shivkumar Malaghan and Ors. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top