17/11/2021

Whether a foreign award is sufficient to initiate insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd. Vs. Steer overseas Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Cuttack Bench

The question involved in this case is whether a foreign award is sufficient to initiate insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority referred Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited 2020 SCC online SC 749 judgment and held that the foreign award in not a decree in itself. A foreign award cannot directly constitute debt to initiate proceedings against Corporate Debtor under IBC. The mere production of foreign award is not enough to give an effect. Part II Chapter I of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 deals with enforcement of foreign awards in India. As per per explanation to Section 47, ‘the court’ mentioned therein denotes only High Courts.

Whether a foreign award is sufficient to initiate insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd. Vs. Steer overseas Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Cuttack Bench Read Post »

When no mention of existence of dispute is made by the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor can immediately file Application under Section 9 of IBC – Henan Boom Gelatin Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Healthcare Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT set aside order of NCLT and held that if there is a dispute in existence, the same may be immediately communicated to the Operational Creditor so that he may chart his course of action. When no mention of existence of dispute is made by the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor can immediately file Application under Section 9 which has been done in the present case by Operational Creditor. It also held that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be real substantial dispute. It is true that the Adjudicating Authority has to see the reply and the contents therein and has not to enter into adjudication of the dispute. He is only required to look into the substance of the pleading to find out whether there is a real dispute is decipherable from the reply.

When no mention of existence of dispute is made by the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor can immediately file Application under Section 9 of IBC – Henan Boom Gelatin Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Healthcare Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLT allows belated claim of GST condoning a delay of around 452 days of submitting the claim – Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST, Odisha Vs. Mr. Manish Jain RP of Krishna Ferro Products Ltd. – NCLT Cuttack Bench

In this case, The Applicant had lodged its claim with the RP on 15.01.2021 when there was a delay of around 452 days of submitting the claim, the Respondent/RP has refused to consider the same on the grounds of delay as the same was submitted beyond the cut-off date.
The Adjudicating Authority held that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Covid-19 pandemic and corresponding lockdowns etc. and more particularly in the interest of revenue of the Exchequer, as a special case this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to allow this appeal and condoned the delay of 452 days in lodging the claim by the Applicant, namely, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & G.S.T., C.T. & G.G.T. Circle, Rourkela-Il, Odisha.

NCLT allows belated claim of GST condoning a delay of around 452 days of submitting the claim – Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST, Odisha Vs. Mr. Manish Jain RP of Krishna Ferro Products Ltd. – NCLT Cuttack Bench Read Post »

CIRP cannot be initiated against the due amount which was adjusted for payment of dues of a groups company – M/s Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Prayag Tubes Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that with regard to the issuance of the letter dated 30.11.2018 there was no requirement of the Board Resolution. The Managing Director who is defined in the Companies Act is clearly is empowered to carry on day to day functions of the company. When the Board Resolutions are necessary have also been contemplated u/s 179(3) of the Companies Act and we are not persuaded to accept the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there ought to have been a Board Resolution in favour of Mr. Devender Kumar Aggarwal for issuance of letter dated 30.11.2018. The letter was issued by the Managing Director which is proved from materials brought on record. No error has been committed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ in relying on the said letter. The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that there was no default, since the amount claimed by the Petitioner i.e. the Appellant has been adjusted for which there was sufficient material on the record. There is no error in the order of Adjudicating Authority which needs interference by this Court in this Appellate Jurisdiction.

CIRP cannot be initiated against the due amount which was adjusted for payment of dues of a groups company – M/s Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Prayag Tubes Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top