26/09/2023

If Bank has entered into One Time Restructuring(OTR) Proposal with Corporate Debtor, date of default for the purpose of Section 10A of IBC will be date of default in OTR proposal and not original/NPA date of default – Pradeep Madhukar More Suspended Director of Syntex Trading & Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 32 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Asset classification of the borrower has to be treated to be downgraded with effect from 29.12.2020. Clause 48 of the RBI Circular dated 06.08.2020, is thus only to be read with regard to downgrading to NPA for the relevant date and this Clause 48 is not relevant to find out event of default, which occurred under the One Time Restructuring Agreement and which is foundation of Section 7 Application.
(ii) The One Time Restructuring Agreement, which is entered between the parties, i.e., the Corporate Debtor and the Central Bank of India and is binding on the parties.
(iii) Application under Section 7 was not filed for default committed during 10A period, rather the Application was specifically filed for default committed under the OTR Agreement, which is committed on 31.03.2022, which was much subsequent to 10A period
(iv) By mentioning NAP date, i.e., 29.12.12020, which was in obedience of the Clause 48, no benefit can be made by the Appellant by contending that Application was filed for default during the 10A period.
(v) The appeal was dismissed.

If Bank has entered into One Time Restructuring(OTR) Proposal with Corporate Debtor, date of default for the purpose of Section 10A of IBC will be date of default in OTR proposal and not original/NPA date of default – Pradeep Madhukar More Suspended Director of Syntex Trading & Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Income Tax Department who has filed claim as Operational Creditor is entitle for amount not less than the amount to be paid in the event of liquidation as per Section 53 – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anuj Jain, IRP of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 39 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) The claim which was submitted in the proceeding and the Successful Resolution Applicant has very well dealt with claim submitted by the Income Tax Department of Rs.3334.29 Crores. Even if the claim for the AY 2012-13 of Income Tax Department cannot be said to be extinguished, Appellant being an Operational Creditor, the liquidation value of the Income Tax Department is NIL. The payment of Rs.10 Lakhs cannot be said to be violative of provisions of Section 30(2)(e).
(ii) Appellants claim for the AY 2012-13 cannot be said to be non-existent, as is the stand taken by the IRP. However, after admitting the aforesaid claim for the AY 2012-13 for total amount of Rs.1157.07 Crores, as claimed by the Appellant, Income Tax Department who has filed claim as Operational Creditor was entitle for amount not less than the amount to be paid in the event of liquidation as per Section 53. It is specifically submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and 3 that liquidation value of the Appellant being NIL, the Appellant was not entitled to receive any amount as per Section 30(2)(b). We, thus, are of the view that no effective relief can be granted to the Appellant in the present Appeal. The treatment of the claim of the Appellant in the Resolution Plan cannot be said to be in violation of Section 30(2)(e).

Income Tax Department who has filed claim as Operational Creditor is entitle for amount not less than the amount to be paid in the event of liquidation as per Section 53 – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anuj Jain, IRP of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

IBC is a time bound process and the Liquidator cannot accept a belated Claim – V.K. Abdul Rahim Vs. Jasin Jose, RP/ Liquidator – NCLAT Chennai

/ 9 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Being the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor Company, the Appellant cannot plead ignorance of the Proceedings and this Tribunal is of the earnest view that preferring an Appeal and challenging the Liquidation Order, cannot be a substantial ground, for not having preferred the Claim on time.
(ii) IBC is a time bound process and the Liquidator cannot accept a belated Claim, which would go against with the provisions of the IBC, 2016 as well as the scope and objective of the Code.
(iii) upheld the decision of NCLT Kochi Bench.

IBC is a time bound process and the Liquidator cannot accept a belated Claim – V.K. Abdul Rahim Vs. Jasin Jose, RP/ Liquidator – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

The dispute with respect to forgery cannot be decided by Adjudicating Authority under IBC – Narender Steel and Alloys Vs. Jai Mata Engineering Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI

/ 2 minutes of reading

NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI held that the dispute with respect to forgery cannot be decided by this Adjudicating Authority. It is settled law that proceedings before NCLT are summary in nature and adversarial evidence cannot be led and appraised by this Tribunal. This Adjudicating Authority is not expected to ascertain the veracity of documents in a summary proceeding, if the Tribunal starts adjudicating these types of issues, then the purpose of the statute of enacting speedy disposal by the mechanism will be defeated. Therefore, the Applicant may explore other legal remedies.

The dispute with respect to forgery cannot be decided by Adjudicating Authority under IBC – Narender Steel and Alloys Vs. Jai Mata Engineering Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI Read Post »

In a Section 9 proceeding, Adjudicating Authority is not to enter into final adjudication with regard to existence of dispute between the parties regarding the operational debt – Raju Jagtap, Suspended Director of Insteel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Steel Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 23 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that keeping in mind that IBC bestows only summary jurisdiction upon the Adjudicating Authority and this Tribunal, once plausibility of a pre-existing dispute is shown, it is not required of them to make further detailed investigation. What has to be looked into is whether the defence raises a dispute which needs further adjudication by a competent court. It is well settled that in a Section 9 proceeding, the Adjudicating Authority is not to enter into final adjudication with regard to existence of dispute between the parties regarding the operational debt.

In a Section 9 proceeding, Adjudicating Authority is not to enter into final adjudication with regard to existence of dispute between the parties regarding the operational debt – Raju Jagtap, Suspended Director of Insteel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Steel Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where parties can repeatedly come to court due to non-payment of debt – Saran Equipments and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ASPG Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI

/ 1 minute of reading

The Operational Creditor is claiming the debt on same set of invoices which was filed before in CP(IB) 3277/ND/2019. NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Invent Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. vs Girnar Fibres Ltd. and held that IBC is not a recovery proceeding where parties can repeatedly come to court due to non-payment of debt.

IBC is not a recovery proceeding where parties can repeatedly come to court due to non-payment of debt – Saran Equipments and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ASPG Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI Read Post »

Scroll to Top