13/09/2023

Is it necessary for promoters to compete with other resolution applicants to retain control of the corporate debtor, if a corporate debtor is an MSME? – R. Raghavendran Vs. C. Raja John & Ors. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]

Is it necessary for promoters to compete with other resolution applicants to retain control of the corporate debtor, if a corporate debtor is an MSME? – R. Raghavendran Vs. C. Raja John & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

The absence of any pre-established ‘convention’ for charging interest in cases of delayed payments became irrelevant when payments against the invoices were not received at all, and an acknowledged default of the principal amount happened – Kunal Concehm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CA Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) A default occurred on the part of the CD. The absence of any pre-established ‘convention’ for charging interest in cases of delayed payments became irrelevant when payments against the invoices were not received at all, and an acknowledged default of the principal amount happened. It is precisely at this juncture that the applicant invoked the clause specifying an 18% interest charge, that was clearly stated on their invoices, which accompanied the supply of goods to the CD before the initiation of the CIRP.
(ii) The interest claim of the applicant is undoubtedly the ‘claim’ within the meaning of section 3(6) and a ‘debt’ owed within the definition of the term u/s 3(11) of IBC.

The absence of any pre-established ‘convention’ for charging interest in cases of delayed payments became irrelevant when payments against the invoices were not received at all, and an acknowledged default of the principal amount happened – Kunal Concehm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CA Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Where CoC has approved with more than 90% of voting share, it is not open to an Adjudicating Authority/NCLT in law to reject the CIRP withdrawal application – Mayuras Industrial Services Vs. S R Shriraam Shekher RP of Prodeb Brewery Technology Belgium Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) One cannot remain in oblivion of the fact that the ‘mandate of the Code’ is for Resolution and Revival of Companies.
(ii) It must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction of an Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal u/s 12 of the Code is very much limited. In reality, where CoC had approved with more than 90% of voting share, it is not open to an Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal in law to reject the application.
(iii) The conclusion arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal in allowing the IA is free from legal infirmities.

Where CoC has approved with more than 90% of voting share, it is not open to an Adjudicating Authority/NCLT in law to reject the CIRP withdrawal application – Mayuras Industrial Services Vs. S R Shriraam Shekher RP of Prodeb Brewery Technology Belgium Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

When Resolution Plan is approved by CoC and the same is pending for approval before Adjudicating Authority, no intervention is allowed against the decision taken by the RP in admission of claim amount – Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Division Vs. Pradeep Kumar Kabra RP of Cengres Tiles Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that even if the claim amount is admitted in full then also the operational creditor will not be paid more than what is proposed to be paid and therefore, at this stage when the resolution plan is approved by the CoC and the same is pending for approval before this Adjudicating Authority, we are not inclined to intervene in the decision taken by the RP.

When Resolution Plan is approved by CoC and the same is pending for approval before Adjudicating Authority, no intervention is allowed against the decision taken by the RP in admission of claim amount – Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Division Vs. Pradeep Kumar Kabra RP of Cengres Tiles Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

No provision under the IBC which allows the computation of claims done by a Resolution Professional for one Corporate Debtor’s Resolution to be binding on a completely different Resolution Process of a different Corporate Debtor – Mr. Somshankar Das Gupta Vs. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III

NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III held that:
(i) Once the Information Memorandum is prepared, the Resolution Professional must make sure that it is readily available to whoever is interested to bid a solution for the Corporate Debtor.
(ii) There is no such provision in the IBC, 2016 and in the Regulations made thereunder that allows the Resolution Professional to issue/provide the Information Memorandum and the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC to the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor.
(iii) No provision under the IBC which allows the computation of claims done by a Resolution Professional for one Corporate Debtor’s Resolution to be binding on a completely different Resolution Process of a different Corporate Debtor.

No provision under the IBC which allows the computation of claims done by a Resolution Professional for one Corporate Debtor’s Resolution to be binding on a completely different Resolution Process of a different Corporate Debtor – Mr. Somshankar Das Gupta Vs. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III Read Post »

CIRP Order in Insolvency of Coffee Day Global Ltd. has been set aside in view of settlement between the Corporate Debtor and Bank – Malavika Hegde, Suspended Director of Coffee Day Global Ltd. Vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

CIRP Order in Insolvency of Coffee Day Global Ltd. has been set aside in view of settlement between the Corporate Debtor and Bank – Malavika Hegde, Suspended Director of Coffee Day Global Ltd. Vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top