29/10/2021

Service of Record Management and Record Retrieval to the Resolution Professional are critical in nature – Ratan India Finance Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

NCLT found that the refusal of the Respondent to deny access to the RP to the Business record of the Corporate Debtor is in contrary to Section 18 and 25 of the Code. The Bench notes that the business record of the Company is an indelible right of the Resolution Professional and a contractual duty of the Respondent which it has failed to perform. In view of this the Bench, the Bench is of the views and as pleaded by the Corporate Debtor that the Corporate is entitled for cost incurred by the Respondent under Section 235A of the Code.

Service of Record Management and Record Retrieval to the Resolution Professional are critical in nature – Ratan India Finance Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Security Deposit as Financial Debt – Sushila H. Mehta Vs. RP of Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. Ms. Pratibha Khandelwal – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 7 minutes of reading

The Corporate Debtor i.e. Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. is under CIRP and Ms. Pratibha Khandelwal appointed as RP by the Adjudicating Authority. Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and the other four Creditors who are the Appellant herein filed their claim as the Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor. However, the RP has treated their claim as Operational Debt. Hence, Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and the Appellants have filed Applications before the Adjudicating Authority. Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 18.01.2021 dismissed the Application holding that the RP has rightly admitted the claim as Operational Debt.

NCLAT held that the case of the Appellants is squarely covered by the decision of Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. RP of Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd., Ms. Pratibha Khandelwal (2021) ibclaw.in 477 NCLAT and held that the debt owed to the Appellants, is a Financial Debt as defined under Section 5(8) of the IBC.

Security Deposit as Financial Debt – Sushila H. Mehta Vs. RP of Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. Ms. Pratibha Khandelwal – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 19(2) of the Code application is neither for exclusion of time period nor for extension of time period – Harish Taneja The RP of Cosmopolitan Technofab Textiles Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 12 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that the time period provided under IBC for completion of CIRP is 180 days as per section 12. If the CIRP is not completed within this time period, an explicit extension order is to be sought from the Adjudicating Authority, which can be of maximum of 90 days. From the averments made by the Resolution Profession and the arguments submitted before us, we do not find that after the expiry of 180 days from the date of commencement of CIRP, the Resolution Professional obtained approval of the CoC to file an application for extension of CIRP. Moreover, he never filed any application for extension of CIRP and waited for a decision on his section 19(2) application. Section 19(2) application was neither for exclusion of time period nor for extension of time period. We are of the very clear opinion that since the Resolution Professional could not receive any order in action with section 19(2) application, he should have filed an application for extension of CIRP as required under section 12, after a lapse of 180 days from the commencement of CIRP, after due approval of CoC. All this is requirement under Law, which cannot be lost sight of, and the Resolution Professional has been remiss in carrying out his responsibilities as per provisions of IBC. In such a situation, we find that he is seeking extension of time period of CIRP in the garb of “exclusion of time period” which cannot be permitted.

Section 19(2) of the Code application is neither for exclusion of time period nor for extension of time period – Harish Taneja The RP of Cosmopolitan Technofab Textiles Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top