23/01/2024

In terms of Section 60(5)(c) of IBC 2016, Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has jurisdiction to adjudicate on provisional order of attachment under Section 5(1) of PMLA only to the extent of examining whether protection envisaged under Sec. 32A of IBC can be extended to the properties of Corporate Debtor forming part of approved Resolution Plan till a resolution takes place or sale of liquidation asset occurs – SREI Multiple Assets Investment Trust Vs. Enforcement Directorate and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

/ 9 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench holds that:

(i) The property which formed part of the resolution plan duly approved under the provisions of IB Code, enjoys the protection enshrined in section 32A of I&B Code. This Tribunal therefore, is bound to safeguard the said ‘protection’ from any kind of ‘onslaught’ on the properties of the corporate debtor which formed part of the approved resolution plan. Viewed from the object behind insertion of this section, we are of the firm conclusion that the said ‘protection’ needs to be ‘extended’ to the ‘provisional order of attachment made under the provisions of PML Act, lest the very purpose of introducing section 32A by way of an amendment by the legislature gets defeated. Therefore, for the said limited extent, this Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction as enshrined in Section 60(5)(c) of Code 2016.
(ii) NCLT while keeping ourselves aloof from entering in to any finding on the supremacy between the I&B Code and the PMLA, and on other aspects relating to the maintainability of the impugned provisional order of attachment, hereby holds that, in terms of section 60(5)(c) of the Code 2016, this Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the impugned provisional order of attachment only to the extent of examining whether the ‘protection’ envisaged under Section 32A of IB Code, can be extended to the properties of the corporate debtor forming part of the approved resolution plan till a resolution takes place or sale of liquidation asset occurs.
(iii) Quashing the impugned provisional order of attachment by this Tribunal, is uncalled for and unwarranted. It is for the applicant or for that matter the erstwhile Resolution Professional, to implead in the said Writ petitions, and urge for quashing the impugned provisional order of attachment.

In terms of Section 60(5)(c) of IBC 2016, Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has jurisdiction to adjudicate on provisional order of attachment under Section 5(1) of PMLA only to the extent of examining whether protection envisaged under Sec. 32A of IBC can be extended to the properties of Corporate Debtor forming part of approved Resolution Plan till a resolution takes place or sale of liquidation asset occurs – SREI Multiple Assets Investment Trust Vs. Enforcement Directorate and Ors. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Society is not entitled to recover the past arrears in respect of the unit sold in auction during Liquidation Process of Corporate Debtor | Section 238 of IBC overrides Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960 – Mr. Hitendra Vishanji Nagda and Ors. Vs. Prime Plaza Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 4 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench holds that:
(i) On the basis of the law laid down in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. AAR AAR Technoplast Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2022) ibclaw.in 717 NCLAT by the Hon’ble NCLAT, in our considered view, it can be safely held that Society cannot recover the arrears of the dues pertaining to the period prior to execution of the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser.
(ii) Section 238 of the IB Code provides that provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect virtue of any such law.
(iii) Society is not entitled to recover the past arrears in respect of the unit purchased by the Applicant in auction from the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor.

Society is not entitled to recover the past arrears in respect of the unit sold in auction during Liquidation Process of Corporate Debtor | Section 238 of IBC overrides Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960 – Mr. Hitendra Vishanji Nagda and Ors. Vs. Prime Plaza Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

NCLT disposes of IBC Section 7 petition filed by Homebuyer in Real Estate Insolvency resolving the issue through Advocate Commissioner – Girish Luthra and Ors. Vs. Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi

/ 3 minutes of reading

In this case, the Home Buyers are aggrieved by the Corporate Debtor’s conduct in not completing the project in time; and therefore creditors in a class filed Section 7 Petition. NCLT appointed an Advocate Commissioner vide order dated 23.05.2023. The Home Buyers giving their assent to Plan-A proposed by the Corporate Debtor, the details of the proposal was agreed by the Corporate Debtor.

Hon’ble NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi disposes of the petition holding that since the parties have come to certain terms for resolving the issue we deem it fit to record the same stating that it will be binding on the parties for implementation. We do so keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the similar proceedings in the case of Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja & Ors. reported in (2022) ibclaw.in 14 SC as well as in the matter of Anand Murti vs. Soni Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2022) ibclaw.in 27 SC.

NCLT disposes of IBC Section 7 petition filed by Homebuyer in Real Estate Insolvency resolving the issue through Advocate Commissioner – Girish Luthra and Ors. Vs. Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top