04/12/2023

Whether Adjudicating Authority under IBC, has jurisdiction to direct Lessee to vacate and deliver possession of Corporate Debtor’s property to Liquidator? – Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi Vs. Bhagyanagar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

NCLT Hyderabad held that:
(i) In Jhanvi Rajpal Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 09 NCLAT, where in an identical fact situation and held that when the Corporate Debtor has the ownership rights over the premises which premises can be taken in control by IRP/RP, we are of the view that for eviction of the Appellant especially in event when lease in favour of the Appellant has come to an end, filing a suit is not contemplated in the statutory scheme contained in IBC.
(ii) The respondent is in occupation of the property of the corporate debtor despite expiry of the lease deed dated 30.09.2022 it is overwhelmingly clear that, the possession of the respondent is wrongful, hence the respondent is not entitled under law to resist the present application.

Whether Adjudicating Authority under IBC, has jurisdiction to direct Lessee to vacate and deliver possession of Corporate Debtor’s property to Liquidator? – Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi Vs. Bhagyanagar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with | In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Others – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) The date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement.
(ii) The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with.
(iii) In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order. Such an approach would be a violation of the NCLT Rules, which create a distinction between hearing and pronouncement and do not allow the NCLT to dispense with the requirement of pronouncement.
(iv) The Hon’ble Court appreciates the swift action taken by the NCLAT in view of the above observations. On 15 May 2023, soon after the decision in Sanket Agarwal (supra), an order was issued by the Registrar, NCLAT. Such proactive action by tribunals is essential to ensure that the move towards a modernized and technology-friendly judiciary trickles down to every judicial forum across the country. We record our appreciation of the proactive steps taken by the Chairperson, Members and the Registry of the NCLAT

The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with | In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Others – Supreme Court Read Post »

Erstwhile Demand Notice issue u/s 8 of IBC cannot be treated as a valid Demand Notice for filing fresh petition u/s 9 where earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the date of default and amount are also different – Willis Lease Finance Corporation v. SpiceJet Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-V

NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-V held that
(i) On bare perusal of Section 5 (21) of IBC, it is clear that ‘Operational Debt’ is a claim in respect of provision of goods or services which should be based on a contract duly entered between the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor. Moreover, it is settled law that an Operational Creditor is a person to whom an operational debt is owed.
(ii) Under definitions in Section 5(20) “operational creditor means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred”.
(iii) Section 8 (1) of IBC provides that an Operational Creditor is required to deliver a demand notice for unpaid operational debt and the same is sine qua non for filing and maintaining petition under Section 9 of the IBC. However, in the instant case WLFC had issued a Demand Notice pursuant to which a petition was filed and it was “dismissed as withdrawn”. In the instant case, no fresh Demand Notice was issued by WLFC to SpiceJet, and WLFC in the present Petition is relying on its erstwhile Demand Notice and the demand notice cannot be treated as a valid Demand notice for the alleged debt amount.

Erstwhile Demand Notice issue u/s 8 of IBC cannot be treated as a valid Demand Notice for filing fresh petition u/s 9 where earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the date of default and amount are also different – Willis Lease Finance Corporation v. SpiceJet Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-V Read Post »

Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) contains a condition for submission of Bank Guarantee along with Resolution Plan is not contrary to CIRP Regulation 36B – Rakesh Ranjan v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) CIRP Regulation 36B(4) it only provides for request of resolution plan shall not require any non-refundable deposit.
(ii) Appellant has made a request to CoC to waive the requirement of Bank Guarantee which was not accepted by the CoC and Appellant having not complied with the terms of the RFRP in submitting the plan, we do not find any illegality in the decision of the CoC in not considering the Resolution Plan of the Appellant.

Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) contains a condition for submission of Bank Guarantee along with Resolution Plan is not contrary to CIRP Regulation 36B – Rakesh Ranjan v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top