10/07/2024

If there is no agreement or correspondence between the parties with respect to the interest component under the MSMED Act, 2006, the interest cannot be added to reach the Rs. 1 crore threshold limit under IBC – Lakshya Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Indure Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench

Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi Bench referred the judgment in Anant Gupta vs. Nilesh Vasantrao Bhorkar (2024) ibclaw.in 71 NCLAT and held that if there is no agreement or correspondence between the parties with respect to the interest component under the MSMED Act, 2006, the interest cannot be added to reach the Rs. 1 crore threshold limit under IBC.

If there is no agreement or correspondence between the parties with respect to the interest component under the MSMED Act, 2006, the interest cannot be added to reach the Rs. 1 crore threshold limit under IBC – Lakshya Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Indure Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »

The principal of quasi partnership can be invoked in family companies and also applicable to public listed companies – Mr. Virendra R. Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

This judgment covers:

A. Family Dispute Settlement, B. Quasi Partnership, C. Oppression and mismanagement, D. Legitimate Expectations and E. Tribunal’s powers to order division of assets in an oppression and mismanagement petition.

The principal of quasi partnership can be invoked in family companies and also applicable to public listed companies – Mr. Virendra R. Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Whether all dues of EPFO (Contribution u/s 7A, Interest u/s 7Q and Damages u/s 14 of the EPF Act) are to be treated outside Liquidation Estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of IBC and Section 53(1) cannot be made applicable to such dues? – Mr. Anuj Bajpai Vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Liquidator submitted that only contribution under Section 7A should have been treated as dues payable to the workers and employees under Section 36(4) of the Code and remaining amount should have been treated as other claims to be dealt in accordance with Section 53 Code.

Hon’ble NCLAT referred the judgment in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (2017) ibclaw.in 119 SC and held that interest payable by the employee under Section 7Q and the damages levied under Section 14B of the EPF Act will also be covered as dues from the employers for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the EPF Act.

The Hon’ble Bench also referred judgments in Sunil Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Sundaresh Bhatt and Ors. (2022) ibclaw.in 23 SC, Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association (2022) ibclaw.in 861 NCLAT and SBI v. Moser Baer Karamchari Union (2020) ibclaw.in 206 NCLAT and dismissed the appeal holding that the contention of the Liquidator is not tenable and stand rejected.

Whether all dues of EPFO (Contribution u/s 7A, Interest u/s 7Q and Damages u/s 14 of the EPF Act) are to be treated outside Liquidation Estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of IBC and Section 53(1) cannot be made applicable to such dues? – Mr. Anuj Bajpai Vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can an application under Section 95(1) of IBC be filed jointly with other Creditors/Resolution Professional for initiating an insolvency resolution process? – Arvind Dham Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court (3Judge Bench) has dismissed an appeal filed against NCLAT’s judgment which was on the issue whether Section 95(1) empowers the creditor to apply either by himself, or jointly with other creditors, or through a resolution professional for initiating an insolvency resolution process under this section by submitting an application to the Adjudicating Authority.

Can an application under Section 95(1) of IBC be filed jointly with other Creditors/Resolution Professional for initiating an insolvency resolution process? – Arvind Dham Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Can a New Resolution Applicant be brought in or substituted with another Resolution Applicant, after approval of a Resolution Plan u/s 31 of IBC? – UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Aircel Ltd. – Supreme Court

A 3-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of NCLAT where NCLAT fully agreed with the reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for substituting another Resolution Applicant in place of the Appellant. When plan of the Appellant as Resolution Applicant was approved, the Adjudicating Authority rightly refused to substitute another Resolution Applicant, in which order no infirmity is found

Can a New Resolution Applicant be brought in or substituted with another Resolution Applicant, after approval of a Resolution Plan u/s 31 of IBC? – UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Aircel Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Can Dissenting Secured Financial Creditor insist payment of amount as per security interest?, Supreme Court dismisses appeal – Paridhi Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Value Infracon Buyers Association and Anr. – Supreme Court

A three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed against an order of NCLAT where Hon’ble NCLAT held that dissenting Secured Financial Creditor cannot insist payment of amount as per security interest, when there is resolution of Corporate Debtor through a Resolution Plan.

The NCLAT also held that the Resolution Plan submitted by Flat Buyers Association cannot be faulted on the ground that CoC have chosen not to take any performance security.

Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.

Can Dissenting Secured Financial Creditor insist payment of amount as per security interest?, Supreme Court dismisses appeal – Paridhi Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Value Infracon Buyers Association and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether commencement of arbitration proceeding prior to filing of CIRP application will negate the proceedings under Section 7 of IBC – Century Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Religare Finvest Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

In this judgment, Hon’ble Bench of NCLT, Kolkata Bench, comprising of Ms. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri Arvind Devanathan (Technical Member) held that:

(i) It does not matter whether the arbitration proceedings commenced before or after filing of petition under Section 7 of IBC.
(ii) “default” per se is not arbitrable. Things like quantum of debt, rate of interest, various charges, period of debt, restructuring proposal, service levels of the respondent, penal interest levied etc. are arbitrable not the default per se or insolvency of the Applicant which can be adjudicated by this Tribunal.
(iii) Initiation of arbitration by Corporate Debtor is malafide act to prolong CIRP.

Whether commencement of arbitration proceeding prior to filing of CIRP application will negate the proceedings under Section 7 of IBC – Century Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Religare Finvest Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top