20/05/2022

In case of Operational Debts, the interest component cannot be clubbed with the Principal Debt to arrive at the minimum pecuniary threshold of Rs. 1 Crore – M/s Plastofab Vs. Electroteknica Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Adjudicating Authority referring to the Jumbo Paper Products vs. Hansraj Agrofresh Pvt. Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 497 NCLAT, held that in case of Operational Debts, the interest component cannot be clubbed with the Principal Debt to arrive at the minimum pecuniary threshold of Rs. 1 Crore. Further, that the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore will be applicable for applications filed u/s 7 or 9 on or after 24.3.3020 even if the date of default precedes 24.3.2020.

In case of Operational Debts, the interest component cannot be clubbed with the Principal Debt to arrive at the minimum pecuniary threshold of Rs. 1 Crore – M/s Plastofab Vs. Electroteknica Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

As per Section 18 of IBC, Resolution Professional is only bound to include information for previous two years and not beyond – M/s Indian Sources Vs. M/s Vas Data Services Pvt. Ltd. Through RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III

Prayer regarding direction to the resolution Professional to provide the C-Forms for the Invoices, goods related to the year 2016, which is more than 2 years from the date of commencement of CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority held that from the plain reading of the Section 18 of the IBC, it is clear that the resolution professional is only bound to include information for previous two years and not beyond that and as per record, CIRP of Corporate Debtor commenced 09.04.2019, therefore, the resolution professional is duty bound to have financial position of Corporate Debtor for the year F.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and not for the year 2016.

As per Section 18 of IBC, Resolution Professional is only bound to include information for previous two years and not beyond – M/s Indian Sources Vs. M/s Vas Data Services Pvt. Ltd. Through RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III Read Post »

Inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 cannot be invoked when express provisions have been made in the Regulation 32A of Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 for levy of interest in case of delayed payments – Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shailendra Ajmera Liquidator of Kwality Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III

The Adjudicating Authority held that it is amply clear that interest is chargeable in case the payment is not made within 30 days from the execution of the LOI. Further, nowhere in the IBC or the Regulations thereto, there is any provision which empower the Tribunal to waive interest. It held that when express provisions have been made in the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 for levy of interest in case of delayed payments and also the process memorandum and terms of sale under the LOI provide for levy of interest, we do not feel it appropriate invoke the inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 in the present case.

Inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 cannot be invoked when express provisions have been made in the Regulation 32A of Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 for levy of interest in case of delayed payments – Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shailendra Ajmera Liquidator of Kwality Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III Read Post »

GT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayanti Domestic Products Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held that it is clear that in reply to the demand notice, the Corporate Debtor had referred to some disputes pending before the Criminal Court, Chennai and had further stated that the letters and correspondence will be sent to the Operational Creditor shortly. In continuation thereof, the Corporate Debtor has further referred to those disputes between the parties in its reply affidavit also and during the course of arguments also, those very documents have been placed before the Bench. Since the complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 had been pending between the parties and certain pre-existing disputes had been pending between the parties, this petition will have to be rejected.

GT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayanti Domestic Products Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

From the last payment the limitation of three years shall again begin – Sanjeev Agraj, Suspended Director of M/s. Amzen Transportation Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that there is no dispute to the preposition that Application under Section 7 should be filed within three years from the date of NPA but if there are materials on record to indicate that there is an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Code the limitation get extended. The present is the case where there is acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 hence the Limitation got extended hence the Application filed on 06.12.2019 was well within time. No other argument is raised. We do not find any merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.

From the last payment the limitation of three years shall again begin – Sanjeev Agraj, Suspended Director of M/s. Amzen Transportation Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top