05/11/2024

Once insolvency proceeding has been commenced under the IBC, any act by the High Court to independently initiate settlement of claims of the creditors may be in conflict with the liquidation scheme as is required to be statutorily approved by the NCLT – Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court

/ 14 minutes of reading

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

Once insolvency proceeding has been commenced under the IBC, any act by the High Court to independently initiate settlement of claims of the creditors may be in conflict with the liquidation scheme as is required to be statutorily approved by the NCLT – Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

Mere nomenclature or mention of an individual as a Director of a Company cannot itself be the basis for bringing him/her into the fold of Section 138 with aid of Section 141 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Yashovardhan Birla Vs. Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. and Anr. – Delhi High Court

/ 20 minutes of reading

It is a well-settled principle in law that if any Director seeks quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act or any process issued therein, then one must show that the complaint is bereft of the appropriate pleadings/averments which would bring him into the fold of the rigours of Section 141 NI Act and in this regard, one must bring on record, certain sterling and incontrovertible evidence showing that the accused is not concerned with issuance of the said cheques, which can only be seen by the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Mere nomenclature or mention of an individual as a Director of a Company cannot itself be the basis for bringing him/her into the fold of Section 138 with aid of Section 141 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Yashovardhan Birla Vs. Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

A conjoint reading of Section 33(1)(a) and 33(2) of IBC leaves the Adjudicating Authority with no other option but to order liquidation of the Corporate Debtor – Sandip Kumar Kejriwal, RP of Royal Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority observed that Section 33(1)(a) of the Code mandates that the Adjudicating Authority shall pass an order of liquidation where no resolution plan is received before the expiry of the CIRP. Sub-section (2) thereof requires the Adjudicating Authority to pass the liquidation order where the Resolution Professional intimates to the Adjudicating Authority the decision of the Committee of Creditors approved by not less than 66% of the voting share to liquidate the Corporate Debtor. A conjoint reading of these two provisions leaves this Adjudicating Authority with no other option but to order liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

A conjoint reading of Section 33(1)(a) and 33(2) of IBC leaves the Adjudicating Authority with no other option but to order liquidation of the Corporate Debtor – Sandip Kumar Kejriwal, RP of Royal Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Is Resolution Professional empowered to decide about the status of a creditor as related party? | If a Corporate Debtor is controlled by a Trust, the said trust would fall under the category of related party? – Hari Vitthal Mission Vs. Ravi Sethia RP of Suasth Healthcare Foundation – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 45 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that IRP/RP has to decide about related party status of creditors of the CD for constituting the CoC as related parties cannot form part of CoC. After confirmation as RP appointment of IRP as RP the matters relating to CoC continue to be handled by RP as he chairs the CoC meetings. If the CD is controlled by a trust in the manner prescribed by aforesaid Sections of the Code, then the said trust would fall under the category of related party.

Is Resolution Professional empowered to decide about the status of a creditor as related party? | If a Corporate Debtor is controlled by a Trust, the said trust would fall under the category of related party? – Hari Vitthal Mission Vs. Ravi Sethia RP of Suasth Healthcare Foundation – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Does the non-submission of a Repayment Plan equate to a rejection of the repayment plan under Section 114 of the IBC? – CA Jasin Jose RP of Ms Devi Kalesh – NCLT Kochi Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Kochi Bench held that in view of the Section 114 of the IBC, this Tribunal is of the opinion that since no repayment plan has been made out till date, the possibility of a resolution of debt in the matter appears grim. Therefore, the application seeking pass order declaring that creditors are entitled to proceed with bankruptcy is hereby allowed.

Does the non-submission of a Repayment Plan equate to a rejection of the repayment plan under Section 114 of the IBC? – CA Jasin Jose RP of Ms Devi Kalesh – NCLT Kochi Bench Read Post »

The date of default cannot be shifted by a recall notice issued by the Financial Creditor – Sandip Narendrakumar Patel (Promotor/Ex-Director) Yours Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Svakarma Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 15 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the Corporate Debtor cannot be permitted to take advantage of the fact that the Financial Creditor had issued a notice of recall dated 06.11.2020, giving 15 days time, to the Corporate Debtor to pay the same and to calculate the date of default as 21.11.2020 which falls within the cut off period of Section 10A because issuance of recall notice, in pursuance of the clause 10.3 of the agreement, was on the occurrence of any of the events of default, which had already occurred in the month of January or at the most February.

The date of default cannot be shifted by a recall notice issued by the Financial Creditor – Sandip Narendrakumar Patel (Promotor/Ex-Director) Yours Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Svakarma Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether Adjudicating Authority could have precluded the consideration of the 12A proposal of the Suspended Directors by the CoC on the ground that Resolution Plan was under consideration of NCLT – Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anil Matta, RP of Primrose Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 36 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT while upholding the decision of NCLT held that the suspended management cannot insist, impose or force the consideration of its settlement proposal by the CoC when the CoC in the exercise of its business decision has categorically decided against considering any such proposal from the Appellant.
The Hon’ble Tribunal also held that when a resolution plan has already been received by the CoC and the CoC in the exercise of its commercial wisdom has decided to only consider this plan and has also rejected with majority voting the settlement plan given by the Appellant, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in disallowing further opportunity to the Appellant to submit a Section 12A proposal

Whether Adjudicating Authority could have precluded the consideration of the 12A proposal of the Suspended Directors by the CoC on the ground that Resolution Plan was under consideration of NCLT – Pratham Expofab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anil Matta, RP of Primrose Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Valuation based on relevant material requires no interference | Dues not included in Resolution Plan are extinguished post approval | IBC provisions override SEZ Act and Rules – Noida Special Economic Zone Authority Vs. Manish Agarwal and Ors. – Supreme Court

/ 16 minutes of reading

In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies following issues:

A. Valuation does not call for any interference if it is based on relevant material on record.
B. All the dues is not the part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be pressed into service or continues.
C. Claims pertaining to the transfer fees, etc. were not to be interfered with by courts or tribunals as the same stood related to the commercial wisdom of the CoC.
D. Does provision of IBC override Special Economic Zone Act and Rules?

Valuation based on relevant material requires no interference | Dues not included in Resolution Plan are extinguished post approval | IBC provisions override SEZ Act and Rules – Noida Special Economic Zone Authority Vs. Manish Agarwal and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top