23/11/2023

Airport Authority of India being a statutory body created under Airport Authority of India Act, 1944, does not come under the definition of ‘Corporate Person’ u/s 3(7) of IBC | A single application against two different Corporate Debtors is not maintainable | Issues pertaining to non-payment for services rendered cannot be addressed through the initiation of insolvency proceedings under IBC – Akash Electrotek Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. NCC Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) Airport Authority of India being a statutory body created under Airport Authority of India Act, 1944, does not come under the definition of ‘corporate person’ under Section 3(7) of IBC.
(ii) A single application against two different Corporate Debtors is not maintainable. Without specifying who actually is responsible for the debt incurred, the Application is rendered ambiguous and thus liable for rejection.
(iii) Moreover, it is essential to acknowledge that the principal objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is not intended to be a tool for recovering disputed debts. Instead, its primary purpose is to facilitate the resolution of insolvency for corporate entities. Issues pertaining to non-payment for services rendered cannot be addressed through the initiation of insolvency proceedings under the IBC.

Airport Authority of India being a statutory body created under Airport Authority of India Act, 1944, does not come under the definition of ‘Corporate Person’ u/s 3(7) of IBC | A single application against two different Corporate Debtors is not maintainable | Issues pertaining to non-payment for services rendered cannot be addressed through the initiation of insolvency proceedings under IBC – Akash Electrotek Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. NCC Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

The commercial wisdom of the CoC is to be given paramount importance for approval/rejection of a Resolution Plan – Mr. Jagadish Prasad Sarda Vs. Indian Bank and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT observes that there was no Resolution Plan which was approved by the CoC, prior to the expiry of the CIRP Period and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority passed the Liquidation Order as mandated under Section 33 (2) of the Code. Having regard to the fact that the CIRP period of 270 days was over and the CoC had voted in favour of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company with a 100 % majority, we do not see any substantial reasons in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that their Plan ought to have been considered.

The commercial wisdom of the CoC is to be given paramount importance for approval/rejection of a Resolution Plan – Mr. Jagadish Prasad Sarda Vs. Indian Bank and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top