16/01/2024

When separate Purchase Orders issued by three associated companies, mere fact that parent company is same, all the invoices cannot be clubbed to meet the threshold of Rs. 1 cr. u/s 4 of IBC – Novacare Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 4 minutes of reading

Operational Creditor filed petition u/s 9 of IBC by clubbing the claims in Purchase Orders which were issued against the three associated companies have different CIN and separate assets and liabilities.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Section 9 application and held that the claim cannot be clubbed.

Hon’ble NCLAT affirms the decision of NCLT holding that when separate Purchase Orders were issued by the three hospitals, as noted in the order and invoices were also issued separately, the mere fact that parent company of the three hospitals is same, the Appellant cannot club all the invoices and try to complete the threshold by claiming debt of Rs.1,02,20,129/- whereas with regard to each invoice threshold is not complete, as observed by the Adjudicating Authority.

When separate Purchase Orders issued by three associated companies, mere fact that parent company is same, all the invoices cannot be clubbed to meet the threshold of Rs. 1 cr. u/s 4 of IBC – Novacare Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Resolution Plan submitted by Resolution Applicant during the disqualification from being Directors by RoC cannot be rejected when High Court quashed the disqualification after submission of Resolution Plan | When a list published by RoC in terms of disqualification has been quashed by High Court, it is quashed in its entirety from very inception, the list cannot survive after its quashing for any purpose – Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Rabindra Kumar Mintri and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 19 minutes of reading

In this case, Adjudicating Authority rejected Resolution Plan that the Appellant ineligible to submit a Resolution Plan in view of he being disqualified to act as Director in terms of the disqualification list of RoC. On the date of submission of the plan, Successful Resolution Applicant was disqualified as Director. The order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi does not anywhere state that the list has been quashed retrospectively.

Hon’ble NCLAT set asides the order and holds that:
(i) When by order of the High Court a list is quashed, it has to be treated that the list never existed and its ill effects cannot be attached on the Appellant especially on the date when the order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
(ii) When the list has been quashed, it is quashed in its entirety from very inception. List cannot survive after its quashing by the High Court for any purpose.
(iii) The disqualification of the Appellant held on the said basis is unfounded. After its quashing, it ceases to exist and cannot be relied for any purpose.

Resolution Plan submitted by Resolution Applicant during the disqualification from being Directors by RoC cannot be rejected when High Court quashed the disqualification after submission of Resolution Plan | When a list published by RoC in terms of disqualification has been quashed by High Court, it is quashed in its entirety from very inception, the list cannot survive after its quashing for any purpose – Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Rabindra Kumar Mintri and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 230 of Companies Act, 2013 which envisages one valuer cannot be the basis to bypass Liquidation Process Regulation 35 | Merely a Corporate Debtor has no valid or any marketable title the property, the value of the property cannot be described as Zero, the Registered Valuers are to value the property | Sharing of Valuation Reports with Potential Resolution Applicants by Liquidator is quite contrary to Liquidation Process Regulation 34(4) – Kineta Global Ltd. in consortium with Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai

/ 70 minutes of reading

In this landmark decision, Hon’ble NCLAT holds that:
(i) The requirement of Regulation 35 of the liquidation process Regulations is a separate one from the process mentioned under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 which envisages one valuer cannot be the basis to by pass the Regulation 35 of liquidation process Regulations.
(ii) Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is quite broader and wider in its purview and the Code, 2016
(iii) Merely because in respect of the title of the property, if a Corporate Debtor has no valid or any marketable title, ipso facto, the value of the property cannot be described as Zero. The Registered Valuers are to value the property.
(iv) The Sharing of the Valuation Reports with the Potential Resolution Applicants by the Liquidator is quite contrary to the Regulation 34(4) of the Liquidation Process Regulations.

Section 230 of Companies Act, 2013 which envisages one valuer cannot be the basis to bypass Liquidation Process Regulation 35 | Merely a Corporate Debtor has no valid or any marketable title the property, the value of the property cannot be described as Zero, the Registered Valuers are to value the property | Sharing of Valuation Reports with Potential Resolution Applicants by Liquidator is quite contrary to Liquidation Process Regulation 34(4) – Kineta Global Ltd. in consortium with Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

If Adjudicating Authority condoned the delay in filing of claim in CIRP subject to payment of cost, Appellant cannot claim in appeal that payment of cost be deleted and still the claim be accepted – Commercial Tax Officer Audit -5, Mangalore Vs. Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 3 minutes of reading

In this case, there was inordinate delay in filing the claim and the Adjudicating Authority condoned the delay subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in Bharatkosh. The condonation of delay and acceptance of claim and payment of cost are interrelated. Appellant cannot claim that payment of cost be deleted and still their claim be accepted. We are of the view that imposition of cost cannot be deleted as prayed in this Appeal.

If Adjudicating Authority condoned the delay in filing of claim in CIRP subject to payment of cost, Appellant cannot claim in appeal that payment of cost be deleted and still the claim be accepted – Commercial Tax Officer Audit -5, Mangalore Vs. Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The Approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC is the commercial wisdom of the CoC challenge to which approval can be on limited ground when it is shown that Resolution Plan is not in compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code – Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sutanu Sinha, RP, Patna Highway Projects Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 13 minutes of reading

It is well settled that commercial wisdom of CoC is paramount. The Approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC is the commercial wisdom of the CoC challenge to which approval can be on limited ground when it is shown that Resolution Plan is not in compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code.

The Approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC is the commercial wisdom of the CoC challenge to which approval can be on limited ground when it is shown that Resolution Plan is not in compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code – Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sutanu Sinha, RP, Patna Highway Projects Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top