23/05/2023

Viability and feasibility of Resolution Plan is required to be considered at the stage when Plan is to be approved by the CoC, after the Plan has been approved, the issue of viability and feasibility cannot be allowed to be raised – State Bank of India Vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that (i) the object of the Code especially in a case where Resolution Plan has been approved and which approval also received the confirmation from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is obligatory on all stake holders to initiate the implementation of the Plan, trying to find excuses for refusal to implement by either of the parties cannot be justified.
(ii) All stake holders had to act in a manner so as to implement the Resolution Plan. The Lenders cannot absolve themselves from carrying out their obligation in the Resolution Plan by raising one or other pretext. Viability and feasibility of the Plan is required to be considered at the stage when Plan is to be approved by the CoC. After the Plan has been approved, the issue of viability and feasibility cannot be allowed to be raised by the Appellant. (iii) The implementation of the Resolution Plan being obligation and duty of all stake holders as per the scheme of the IBC, as observed above, the Resolution Applicant shall also carry out its obligation under Resolution Plan promptly, while the Lenders will discharge their obligations in the Plan and as per directions issued in the impugned order by the Adjudicating Authority.

Viability and feasibility of Resolution Plan is required to be considered at the stage when Plan is to be approved by the CoC, after the Plan has been approved, the issue of viability and feasibility cannot be allowed to be raised – State Bank of India Vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

When agreement is executed between the parties, signed by both the parties and acted upon, mere fact that it not being engrossed on stamped papers shall have no adverse consequence on the claim of the Operational Creditor- M/s. Smartworks Coworking Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Turbot HQ India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT observed that when the Corporate Debtor has accepted the agreement and acted upon by using the premises and have utilized services in the office space provided by the Appellant, even accepting the argument of Learned Counsel for the Respondent that it was not duly stamped, do not negate and do not oblige the Adjudicating Authority to ignore the agreement for finding out as to whether the claim made by the Appellant was an Operational Debt. In Section 9 Proceeding, the Adjudicating Authority has to find out as to whether the Operational Debt is due on the Corporate Debtor. In the present case, when Agreement was admittedly executed between the parties, signed by both the parties and acted upon, mere fact that it not being engrossed on stamped papers shall have no adverse consequence on the claim of the Operational Creditor. We thus are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority erred in determining the 3rd point against the operational creditor.

When agreement is executed between the parties, signed by both the parties and acted upon, mere fact that it not being engrossed on stamped papers shall have no adverse consequence on the claim of the Operational Creditor- M/s. Smartworks Coworking Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Turbot HQ India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top