11/03/2024

Whether Revenue/Profit earned from Secured Assets from the date of communication by Secured Creditor to Liquidator to realize Secured Assets asset under Section 52 of IBC till date of possession of Secured Assets by Financial/Secured Creditor will be part of Liquidation Estate? – KRS Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

In this important judgment, Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) From carefully peruse to Regulation 21A(1) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016, it is very much clear that secured assets shall be presumed to be part of the liquidation estate only when secured creditor fail to inform the liquidator of its decision to relinquish its security interest to the liquidation estate or realize its security interest, as the case may be, in Form C or Form D of the Schedule II within 30 days, which admittedly is not applicable in this case on hand.
(ii) If secured creditor intimate its decision in time as prescribed in regulation, the secured assets do not form part of liquidation estate at any point of time.
(iii) If assets cannot be treated as part of liquidation estate, the income derived from these assets also cannot be part of liquidation estate.

Whether Revenue/Profit earned from Secured Assets from the date of communication by Secured Creditor to Liquidator to realize Secured Assets asset under Section 52 of IBC till date of possession of Secured Assets by Financial/Secured Creditor will be part of Liquidation Estate? – KRS Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

As per Regulation 35A of CIRP Regulations, 2016, it is mandatory for the Liquidator/Resolution Professional to form an opinion regarding preferential, undervalued and defrauding transactions – Mr. Shalabh Kumar Daga RP of Silver Proteins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Himanshu J Domadia and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

In this case under Section 43, 45 & 49, Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad Bench observed that it is only resolved in the meeting of SCC that the application is to be filed. Nowhere the applicant has mentioned that he has formed an opinion whether the corporate debtor has been subjected to transaction covered under Section 43, 45 and 49 of the IBC that too before 115th day from the commencement of CIRP. The preferential, undervalued and defrauding transactions requires intention of the party. The applicant not even stated that there was any such intention of the corporate debtor to defraud their creditors. No proof regarding the transactions is filed by Applicant. Beneficiaries are not made parties. The applicant has not quantified the undue benefit received by the Corporate Debtor.

As per Regulation 35A of CIRP Regulations, 2016, it is mandatory for the Liquidator/Resolution Professional to form an opinion regarding preferential, undervalued and defrauding transactions – Mr. Shalabh Kumar Daga RP of Silver Proteins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Himanshu J Domadia and Ors. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Arun Kapoor, RP of CICIL Biochem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just, fair and equitable if the surplus profits earned during the CIRP period are ordered to be enured to the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor which appears to be more in sync with the stipulation in the Resolution Plan which provides that all receivable shall go to the Resolution Applicant after the plan approval date and not prior to that.

Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Arun Kapoor, RP of CICIL Biochem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Whether there is any locus standi of a Promotor/Suspended Director to intervene in an application filed by the Resolution Professional for seeking possession of the property from the respondent who has entered into a lease agreement with the Corporate Debtor? – G. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Dantu Indu Sekhar RP for Nexus Feeds Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that applicant who is suspended director of the corporate debtor has no locus standi to intervene in an application filed by the resolution professional for seeking possession of the property from the respondent who is a third party and has no connection with the applicant.

Whether there is any locus standi of a Promotor/Suspended Director to intervene in an application filed by the Resolution Professional for seeking possession of the property from the respondent who has entered into a lease agreement with the Corporate Debtor? – G. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Dantu Indu Sekhar RP for Nexus Feeds Ltd. and Anr. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Timeline given in CIRP Regulation 36A(6) are to be adhered to strictly – Shree Siddhivinayak Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajan Deshraj Agarwal and Anr. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

In this case, last date for receipt of Expression of Interest was 31.05.2023. The Applicant sent an email to the Resolution Professional requesting him to allow it to submit an EoI for the Corporate Debtor on 01.06.2023. The Resolution Professional sent an email to the Applicant informing them that he had placed the request for extending timeline for submitting EoI but the CoC had stated that the timeline for submitting an EoI should not be extended.

Hon’ble NCLT referring Dwarkashish Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Pankaj Joshi and others (2021) ibclaw.in 280 NCLAT held that we do not find any legitimate reasons to allow the condonation of delay in filing the EoI. Therefore, the present IA is hereby summarily rejected.

Timeline given in CIRP Regulation 36A(6) are to be adhered to strictly – Shree Siddhivinayak Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajan Deshraj Agarwal and Anr. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top