27/07/2022

Whether a resolution plan which is already approved by the CoC, and which is pending before the Adjudicating Authority(AA) for approval can be withdrawn for reconsideration by the CoC on the discovery of new facts and events relating to the resolution applicant and whether the AA is empowered to send back the resolution plan, on such request, to the CoC – Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held that in our view, the resolution plan can be sent back for reconsideration to the CoC, considering the changed circumstances and the commercial wisdom of the CoC, with 96.95% voting, to seek permission of Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of the resolution plan need to be considered for better prospects of Resolution. In our view, the Tribunal is well within its rights to send back the resolution plan for reconsideration to the CoC, on request made by the CoC in its commercial wisdom. In our view that the resolution plan can be sent back to CoC, we are supported by the order of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Bank of Maharashtra vs Videocon Industries Ltd. & Ors. (2022) ibclaw.in 21 NCLAT wherein the Hon’ble NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority is competent to send back a resolution plan to the CoC for re-consideration.

Whether a resolution plan which is already approved by the CoC, and which is pending before the Adjudicating Authority(AA) for approval can be withdrawn for reconsideration by the CoC on the discovery of new facts and events relating to the resolution applicant and whether the AA is empowered to send back the resolution plan, on such request, to the CoC – Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

The “interest” can be claimed as the Financial Debt, but neither there is any provision nor there is any scope to include the interest to constitute as the Operational Debt or part of it – M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Fbonline Trading Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI

The Adjudicating Authority held that the Interest amount cannot be clubbed with the Principal amount of debt to arrive at the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore for complying with the provision of Section 4 of IBC, 2016. The actual debt in the present matter is Rs. 78,62, 126.00/- which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore of debt.

The “interest” can be claimed as the Financial Debt, but neither there is any provision nor there is any scope to include the interest to constitute as the Operational Debt or part of it – M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Fbonline Trading Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI Read Post »

Important judgment on verification of claim, seeking additional information and rejection of belated claim during corporate insolvency (CIRP) under IBC – Sumat Kumar Gupta, RP, M/s Vallabh Textiles Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Vardhman Industries Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Regulation 12(1) is subject to Regulation 12(2) as expressed in the opening sentence of Rule 12(1). CIRP Regulation 12 does not lay down any specific embargo on a creditor who on having failed to satisfy the Resolution Professional with respect to the claims submitted by him under Regulation 12(1) from refiling his claim under Regulation 12(2) as long as it is done on or before the ninetieth day of the insolvency commencement date. CIRP Regulations need to be viewed in a purposive manner so as to advance the cause of insolvency resolution while safeguarding the interest of all the stakeholders. The Resolution Professional while examining claims is therefore expected to act in a manner which inspires confidence in the Financial Creditor so as to ensure the credibility of the insolvency process. The Resolution Professional by summarily rejecting the belated claims at his own level without presenting the complete facts to the CoC has misconstrued his role, duties, and responsibilities.

Important judgment on verification of claim, seeking additional information and rejection of belated claim during corporate insolvency (CIRP) under IBC – Sumat Kumar Gupta, RP, M/s Vallabh Textiles Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Vardhman Industries Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLAT upholds Show Cause Notice issued under Section 65 of IBC – Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Par Excellence Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the present case are considering the initiation of the CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority had sufficient reason to believe that debt itself is doubtful. No error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in refusing to initiate the CIRP on such suspicious debt. Thus, the order of the Adjudicating Authority refusing to initiate CIRP cannot be faulted and we affirm the said order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

NCLAT upholds Show Cause Notice issued under Section 65 of IBC – Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Par Excellence Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Under Section 69 of IBC punishment for transaction defrauding creditors can be awarded only on the officer of the Corporate Debtor or Corporate Debtor – Mr. Rohit Jasoria, Prop. RJ Brothers & Partner RJ Logistics Service LLP Vs. Aargus Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT while dismissing a Company Appeal reported at (2022) ibclaw.in 333 NCLAT, filed by the Ex-Promoter and Ex-Directors of the Corporate Debtor has already returned finding that amounts written off as back dates during the Financial Year comes within the fraudulent transactions under Section 66. The amounts with regard to the Appellant were also written off by the Director. Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly contended that the direction issued in paragraph 29 of the judgment to institute a prosecution under Section 69 against the Appellant also along with the Directors of the Corporate Debtor were uncalled for. He submits that under Section 69 punishment for transaction defrauding creditors can be awarded only on the officer of the Corporate Debtor or Corporate Debtor. NCLAT held that direction in paragraph 29 insofar as Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 (Appellants before us) for prosecution under Section 69 is deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

Under Section 69 of IBC punishment for transaction defrauding creditors can be awarded only on the officer of the Corporate Debtor or Corporate Debtor – Mr. Rohit Jasoria, Prop. RJ Brothers & Partner RJ Logistics Service LLP Vs. Aargus Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top