26/05/2023

The trigger point of Section 29A of IBC is the date when Resolution Plan was actually submitted by Resolution Applicant to CoC – Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. Mr. Umesh Garg, RP of Athena Demwe Power Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II

The Adjudicating Authority held that in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [2018] ibclaw.in 31 SC, it can be inferred that the amendment in Section 29(A)(c) i.e., “at the time of submission of the resolution plan” was clarificatory in nature. Hence, the trigger point of Section 29A is the date when the Resolution Plan was actually submitted by the Resolution Applicant to the CoC. In view of the above and therefore, the date of transfer of shares by the Applicant/NECL in Regina (RIPL) during the period when Section 29A of IBC, 2016 was not notified, will/does not create an escape route for the Applicant, since the date on which the Resolution plan was actually submitted by the Applicant/NECL to the CoC i.e., on 04.06.2018, the Section 29A of IBC, 2016 was in force.

The trigger point of Section 29A of IBC is the date when Resolution Plan was actually submitted by Resolution Applicant to CoC – Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. Mr. Umesh Garg, RP of Athena Demwe Power Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »

Scroll to Top