31/01/2022

Whether the Operational Creditor can file a single application for various claims arising out of separate work orders – G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

AA holds that with regard to the contention raised by the Corporate Debtor, whether the Operational Creditor can file a single application for various claims arising out of separate work orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCLAT on
various occasions have affirmatively decided that separate claims can be a part of single application. The judgments have been relied on by the Operational Creditor.

Whether the Operational Creditor can file a single application for various claims arising out of separate work orders – G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

While a written contract cannot be treated as a pre- requisite to proving the existence of financial debt and while non-production of documents in respect of loans given by NBFC alone cannot preclude the Adjudicating Authority from admitting an Application under section 7 of the Code – Narendra Promoters & Fincon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Caltron Info Trade Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Adjudicating Authority holds that while a written contract cannot be treated as a pre- requisite to proving the existence of financial debt and while non-production of documents in respect of loans given by NBFC alone cannot preclude the Adjudicating Authority from admitting an Application under section 7 of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority must be satisfied that the Corporate Debtor is not being dragged into CIRP with mala fide for any purpose other than the resolution of the Insolvency. Further, the requirement for leading evidence suggests that the instant matter is out of scope of summary proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and will be better dealt with in a civil Court.

While a written contract cannot be treated as a pre- requisite to proving the existence of financial debt and while non-production of documents in respect of loans given by NBFC alone cannot preclude the Adjudicating Authority from admitting an Application under section 7 of the Code – Narendra Promoters & Fincon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Caltron Info Trade Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

A speculative investor cannot claim status and benefits as Financial Creditor under Explanation (i) of Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC – Mrs. Nidhi Rekhan Vs. Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT holds that in our clear opinion, the Appellant, who is a speculative investor, cannot claim status and benefits as financial creditor under Explanation (i) of Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC, and is not interested in the financial well-being, growth and vitality of the Corporate Debtor, but is just interested in her investment and has come in the garb of an allottee. In such a situation, the Appellant is certainly not a financial creditor holding financial debt, which is in default of payment by the Corporate Debtor, and consequently we conclude that the Impugned Order does not require any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

A speculative investor cannot claim status and benefits as Financial Creditor under Explanation (i) of Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC – Mrs. Nidhi Rekhan Vs. Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Receipt of demand notice under Section 8 of the Code by the Corporate Debtor is a must – Nitin Singh Proprietor of Shri Shyam Printers Vs. Waves Bio-tech Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the petition filed by Operational Creditor u/s 9 of the Code. The case of the Appellant is that it has sent the demand notice at the registered office of the CD as per the Master Data available on MCA Website but the demand notice sent through speed post on could not be delivered to the CD /the Respondent and returned back with the remarks “No such person found”. Then the OC/Appellant also sent email at the email id mentioned in the Master data of the Company and the email was not bounced back. NCLAT upheld the decision of the AA.

Receipt of demand notice under Section 8 of the Code by the Corporate Debtor is a must – Nitin Singh Proprietor of Shri Shyam Printers Vs. Waves Bio-tech Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top