09/02/2023

If Demand Notice issued u/s 8 of IBC is not replied, whether Corporate Debtor can raise pre-existing dispute in reply to the petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC – Greymatter Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pro Sportify Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that it is observed from the Sections that neither Section 8 nor Section 9 of the Code indicate that in event Reply to Notice was not filed within 10 days, the Corporate Debtor is precluded from raising the question of dispute or pleading that there or no amount due and payable, the Corporate Debtor is not prevented from establishing by way of a Reply and relevant documents, any Pre-Existing Dispute or paid Operational Debt. We place reliance of the Judgement of this Tribunal in M/s Brand Realty Services Ltd. Vs. M/s Sir John Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 245 NCLAT, where this has been considered in detail.

If Demand Notice issued u/s 8 of IBC is not replied, whether Corporate Debtor can raise pre-existing dispute in reply to the petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC – Greymatter Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pro Sportify Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the decision of the CoC to replace the Resolution Professional being the outcome of the wisdom of the CoC, is subject to judicial review? – Venus India Asset-Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jain, RP of MK Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that when the CoC contemplates change of Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the statutory construct has to merely look into two basic check boxes which is whether the CoC has resolved to that effect with 66% vote share and whether the proposed Resolution Professional has given his written consent and not look at anything beyond. The statutory framework of the IBC also does not mandate that the CoC is required to adduce reasons for replacing the Resolution Professional.

Whether the decision of the CoC to replace the Resolution Professional being the outcome of the wisdom of the CoC, is subject to judicial review? – Venus India Asset-Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jain, RP of MK Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? – Noble Marine Metals Co WLL Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority remitted the Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law. Present is a case where reconsideration is being asked only with regard to clause which was included in the Resolution Plan relating to release of personal guarantee of the promoters which according to Committee of Creditors is not in accordance with law. The Adjudicating Authority has held that it is open to CoC to deliberate the Plan in accordance with law which directions cannot be faulted with more so when the Resolution Applicant himself consented before the Adjudicating Authority. NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority if finds on given set of facts that parameters under Section 30(2)(e) have not been kept in view, the Resolution Plan can be sent back to the CoC to review such plan after satisfying the parameters. The above is the only situation provided by Hon’ble Supreme Court where the plan can be sent back.

In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? – Noble Marine Metals Co WLL Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top