16/08/2023

If Liquidation Process under IBC is completed and the Company is taken over by the Successful Bidder, application u/s 272(1)(e)/271(c) of Companies Act, 2013 cannot be maintained – Union of India Vs. Metkore Alloys and Industries Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

In this case, an application is filed u/s 272(1)(e) read with section 271(c) of Companies Act, 2013, read with section 243 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking winding up of the Metkore Alloys and Industries Ltd.
NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that the company already underwent the process of liquidation and Liquidator was appointed, who declared the successful bidder and had sought for closure of the liquidation process. In similar application, Hyderabad Bench-1 passed an order returning the application therein by observing that the continuation of proceedings against the respondent is impermissible under Law. The application was returned, giving liberty to the applicant after a decision is taken on approval/rejection of the resolution plan in the ongoing CIRP process. The said Bench relied on orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Avani Projects & Infrastructures Ltd Vs Ornate Tradcom Pvt.Ltd CA 92 of 2019.
Since in this case, the liquidation process is completed and the company is taken over by the successful bidder, this application cannot be maintained against the CD and is hence dismissed.

If Liquidation Process under IBC is completed and the Company is taken over by the Successful Bidder, application u/s 272(1)(e)/271(c) of Companies Act, 2013 cannot be maintained – Union of India Vs. Metkore Alloys and Industries Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Whether Company Court can suo motu transfer a proceeding relating to winding up to NCLT or can such transfer only be made pursuant to an application by one of the parties? – Abhijeet Projects Ltd. – Calcutta High Court

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that:
(i) Unless the court is convinced that the company is to suffer an inevitable corporate death the first choice would to be to make an all out attempt to revive the company and this procedure has been elaborately laid down in IBC. The Companies Act, 2013 is not suited for such situation.
(ii) The Court has discretion to transfer the proceeding depending upon the stage of the proceeding. If it appears to the Company Court that the die is cast and the corporate death of the company is inevitable there is no requirement to transfer such proceeding.
(iii) The said discretion is not always dependent upon any formal application being made but it is always desirable that the views of the petitioning creditor, secured creditors and the official liquidator are ascertained.

Whether Company Court can suo motu transfer a proceeding relating to winding up to NCLT or can such transfer only be made pursuant to an application by one of the parties? – Abhijeet Projects Ltd. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

NCLT permits Creditors for filing Bankruptcy application against Personal Guarantor to BRG Energy Ltd. – Maligi Madhusudhana Reddy RP – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

This application is filed by the Resolution Professional, under Section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking to pass an appropriate order under section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in view of the Repayment Plan being rejected by the Creditors. 

The Adjudicating Authority held that in view of the rejection of the repayment plan by the creditors after exercising their commercial wisdom, we deem it fit to permit the creditors to move the Tribunal for a Bankruptcy order by filing an appropriate application. With the above liberty to the creditors, we dispose of this application.

NCLT permits Creditors for filing Bankruptcy application against Personal Guarantor to BRG Energy Ltd. – Maligi Madhusudhana Reddy RP – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

If Corporate Debtor admitted the outstanding debt and agreed to pay to Operational Creditor after raising dispute in reply of demand notice u/s 8 of IBC, CIRP u/s 9 of IBC can be admitted – Naresh Choudhary (Suspended Director of NIK-SAN Engineering Company Ltd.) Vs. Sterling Enamelled Wires Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT observed that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the outstanding amount which was due and payable to the Operational Creditor. Not only was the outstanding amount acknowledged but an assurance had also been given by Corporate Debtor to clear the said amount and make extra payment towards old outstanding dues. Letters of dispute had been raised by the Corporate Debtor on several occasions. Since these letters pertain to the period June 2020 to September 2020, there is no dispute that these pertain to a period prior to the date of demand notice. Subsequent to these communications, the Corporate Debtor has acknowledged his liability on 23.07.2021. At the time of acknowledging the outstanding operational debt, the question of any pre-existing dispute having subsisted lacks foundation.

If Corporate Debtor admitted the outstanding debt and agreed to pay to Operational Creditor after raising dispute in reply of demand notice u/s 8 of IBC, CIRP u/s 9 of IBC can be admitted – Naresh Choudhary (Suspended Director of NIK-SAN Engineering Company Ltd.) Vs. Sterling Enamelled Wires Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top