01/06/2021

NCLT Chennai Bench directs IBBI to share the database of IPs including the details about the disciplinary proceeding, if any which is pending against them, for effective adjudication of matters listed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 – M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. G. Ramakrishna Reddy – NCLT Chennai Bench

Rule 8 of the AAIRPPG Rules, 2019 states that the Board  may share a  database  of the Insolvency Professionals, including the information about the disciplinary proceedings against them with the Adjudicating Authority from time to time. However, upon enquiry from the Registry of this Tribunal, it was found that no such database including in relation to disciplinary proceedings, if  any, of  the insolvency professionals is being shared to the Chennai Bench of NCLT by the Board under the relevant Rules as above. Hence, in this regard, we hereby direct the IBBI also to share the database of the insolvency professionals including  the details about the disciplinary proceeding, if any which is pending against them, for effective adjudication of matters listed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016.

NCLT Chennai Bench directs IBBI to share the database of IPs including the details about the disciplinary proceeding, if any which is pending against them, for effective adjudication of matters listed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 – M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. G. Ramakrishna Reddy – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Notification dated 01.06.2020, changes in criteria for classification of MSME issued under MSMED Act, 2006 is applicable to the Corporate Debtor which is still under liquidation and promoters are eligible to file a scheme u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Mr. Devendra P. Jain Liquidator of M/s Asis Logistics Limited – NCLAT New Delhi

The Appellant/Promoter submitted scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern during the liquidation proceedings which were initiated on 28.08.2019. However, vide amendment dated 06.01.2020, inserted Liquidation Regulation 2B, the Appellant became ineligible to submit a scheme u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Subsequently, the notification dated 01.06.2020 under Sec. 7 of MSMED Act, 2006 has carried out certain changes in criteria for classification of MSME.
NCLAT allowed the Promoters and held that the Appellant is eligible to submit a scheme by virtue of an amendment to Section 7 of MSMED, Act 2006 vide notification dated 01.06.2020 and passed order that the Appellants are allowed to submit a scheme of arrangement to the liquidator of the Corporate Debtor and the liquidator shall consider the scheme of arrangement in accordance with the law.

Notification dated 01.06.2020, changes in criteria for classification of MSME issued under MSMED Act, 2006 is applicable to the Corporate Debtor which is still under liquidation and promoters are eligible to file a scheme u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Mr. Devendra P. Jain Liquidator of M/s Asis Logistics Limited – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLAT replaced the Resolution Professional who failed to examine Resolution Plan as required u/s 30(1) r/w Sec. 30(2) & an ineligible person was supported in the face of documents to the contrary – Navneet Jain Vs. Manoj Sehgal RP of Sarbat Cotfab Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Resolution Applicant(R-2) and Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor (R-3) were partners in two firms. R-2 filed a resolution plan. The Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan submitted by R-2.

NCLAT set aside the order and remitted back the case to AA and declared all actions taken in implementation of the Resolution Plan null and void and held that since the earlier Resolution Professional failed to examine Resolution Plan as required under Section 30(1) read with Section 30(2) and an ineligible person was supported in the face of documents to the contrary, he shall be replaced and another appropriate Resolution Professional shall be appointed as Liquidator under Section 34(4) of IBC. In the facts of the matter, R-2 and 3 are saddled with costs Rs. 4 lakhs to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

NCLAT replaced the Resolution Professional who failed to examine Resolution Plan as required u/s 30(1) r/w Sec. 30(2) & an ineligible person was supported in the face of documents to the contrary – Navneet Jain Vs. Manoj Sehgal RP of Sarbat Cotfab Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top