10/01/2023

Once the resolution plan stands approved by the NCLT, all claims stand frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, survives – Aircel Cellular Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Madras High Court

In this case the claims of the operational creditors including Government dues (including the dues of the Department of Telecommunications) was quantified at an amount of Rs.2,703.96 Crores. From, and out of the same, an amount of Rs.27.85 Crores was admitted, and the amount provided under the plan is Rs.0.25 Crores, being 0.01% of the amount claimed. With the approval of the resolution plan on 09.06.2020 by NCLT, Mumbai Bench-II, the claims of the respondents, that is, the Department of Telecommunications have been duly taken note of by the NCLT.

 Hon’ble High Court referring judgments in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons and Ruchi Soya Industries held that once the resolution plan stands approved by the NCLT, all claims stand frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, survives. In the present case, the claim of the respondents has not only been noted, but also has been accepted, in part.

Once the resolution plan stands approved by the NCLT, all claims stand frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, survives – Aircel Cellular Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Madras High Court Read Post »

An irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14(3)(b) of the IBC – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT concluded that having regard to the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. And Dynepro Pvt. Ltd. vs. V. Nagarajan [2019] ibclaw.in 24 NCLAT, and keeping in view the provisions of the Code, an irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14(3)(b) of the Code. We are conscious of the fact that the Bank has not taken any steps with respect to the alleged fraud, if any, between IOCL and the Corporate Debtor. The findings of the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal have also attained finality.

An irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14(3)(b) of the IBC – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority being the appointing authority of IRP/RP was well within its jurisdiction to pass an order for removal of a Resolution Professional(RP) particularly in a situation where the RP has not taken any steps to convene a meeting of CoC for the purposes of removal of RP – Srigopal Choudary RP of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the provision of Section 27 of the Code contemplates that the replacement of the Resolution Professional can be done by the CoC alone. But if the ingredients of Section 27 of the Code cannot be met i.e. in the event, the RP is not convening the meeting of CoC, which in turn has to decide the replacement of the RP himself, the Adjudicating Authority, in order not to delay the CIRP proceedings, on an application under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 has rightly invoked its inherent jurisdiction and passed the impugned order.

Adjudicating Authority being the appointing authority of IRP/RP was well within its jurisdiction to pass an order for removal of a Resolution Professional(RP) particularly in a situation where the RP has not taken any steps to convene a meeting of CoC for the purposes of removal of RP – Srigopal Choudary RP of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Merely because a party has approached Competition Commission of India or is a corporate debtor in the proceedings before the NCLT, cannot be held to be a bar to raise the disputes for adjudication by way of arbitration – Parsoli Motors Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that the parties may have approached NCLT or other Forums but the scope of adjudication before each of these Fora is independent and merely because the petitioner had approached Competition Commission of India or is a corporate debtor in the proceedings before the NCLT, cannot be held to be a bar to raise the disputes for adjudication by way of arbitration.

Merely because a party has approached Competition Commission of India or is a corporate debtor in the proceedings before the NCLT, cannot be held to be a bar to raise the disputes for adjudication by way of arbitration – Parsoli Motors Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in IBC Section 9 proceedings – Talbot & Company Vs. Austin Distributers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that it is well settled that in Section 9 proceedings the Adjudicating Authority is not to enter into final adjudication with regard to existence of dispute between the parties regarding operational debt. What has to be looked into is whether the defence raises a dispute which needs further adjudication by a competent court. Disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings. If we apply the test laid down in Mobilox by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the facts of the present case it is clear that the defence raised by the Corporate Debtor in their reply filed in Section 9 application is not illusory or moonshine.

Disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in IBC Section 9 proceedings – Talbot & Company Vs. Austin Distributers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top