07/11/2023

Whether NCLT has power and jurisdiction to delete a sentence from the Resolution Plan Approval Order pursuant to an application filed under Rule 154 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules) – Mr. Bhavesh Rathod Erstwhile RP/Member of Monitoring Committee of IGOPL Offshore Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

In this case, Erstwhile RP filed IA under NCLT Rule 154 seeking to bring more clarity in Resolution Plan Approval Order by deleting a sentence- “The relief which is not expressly granted above shall not be construed as granted”.

NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:
(i) A bare reading of Rule 154 of NCLT Rules makes it clear that the power of Tribunal under the said provision is limited to rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. The scope and ambit of the above Rule cannot be extended to review the terms of the Plan Approval Order to substitute a view, howsoever strong the reasons may be.
(ii) The provision of Rule 154 of NCLT Rules is similar to Section 152 of the CPC. In the present case, Tribunal would have had good reasons to state that the relief which is not expressly granted above shall not be construed as granted. The incorporation of the said term in the operative portion of the Plan Approval Order cannot be treated as a clerical mistake or arithmetical error arising from any accidental slip or omission.

Whether NCLT has power and jurisdiction to delete a sentence from the Resolution Plan Approval Order pursuant to an application filed under Rule 154 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules) – Mr. Bhavesh Rathod Erstwhile RP/Member of Monitoring Committee of IGOPL Offshore Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Mere mentioning in the notice or reply that the dispute is in existence between the parties is not sufficient, the dispute should not be a patently weak legal argument or an assertion of fact but must be well supported by evidence on record – Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs. Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that:
(i) The Section 10A of IBC bars the filing of an application in a situation, where the default has occurred during the period from 25.03.2020 to 24.03.2021.
(ii) On a perusal of the definition of the term “dispute” under Section 5(6) of the Code, 2016, inference can be drawn that the dispute should not be a patently weak legal argument or an assertion of fact but must be well supported by evidence on record.
(iii) The jurisprudence regarding the pre-existing dispute is settled in cantena of judgments that mere mentioning in the notice or reply that the dispute is in existence between the parties, in relation of the impugned debt is not sufficient.

Mere mentioning in the notice or reply that the dispute is in existence between the parties is not sufficient, the dispute should not be a patently weak legal argument or an assertion of fact but must be well supported by evidence on record – Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs. Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

The reason that Corporate Debtor or its Bankers were unable to obtain permission for remittance of amount overseas, cannot be made a reason to hold that no default is committed – Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd. Vs. Simoco Telecommunications (South Asia) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that present is a fit case to admit when inspite of several promises and acknowledgement, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the outstanding debt. The Corporate Debtor also has not complied with the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing for depositing the amount equivalent to Indian Rupee in the Court, instead it cited certain regulatory procedure in obtaining the permission for remitting the amount, which order was also not complied by the Corporate Debtor. We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority ought to have admitted Section 9 Application.

The reason that Corporate Debtor or its Bankers were unable to obtain permission for remittance of amount overseas, cannot be made a reason to hold that no default is committed – Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd. Vs. Simoco Telecommunications (South Asia) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Buyer of Not Readily Realisable Assets (NRRA) cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for recovery where proceedings initiated by RP before selling the NRRA are already pending consideration before NCLT – Rainbow Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court

In this case, IRP filed IA that orders/consignments sent through Department of Posts which had been neither delivered to customers nor returned to origin, and there were also orders which had been delivered and for which COD amount stood collected. Thereafter, during Liquidation, the NRRA sold to Buyer.
Writ petition filed by buyer was dismissed by Single Judge Bench of High Court holding that it was not open for the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India for recovery of outstanding dues, as the proceedings in respect of the same are already pending consideration before the NCLT.
In LPA, Division Bench dismissed the petition.

Buyer of Not Readily Realisable Assets (NRRA) cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for recovery where proceedings initiated by RP before selling the NRRA are already pending consideration before NCLT – Rainbow Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top