31/10/2022

Amount of default which has been committed during Section 10A period cannot be clubbed in threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore under Section 4 of IBC – Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Transnational Growth Fund Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that default which has been committed from 16.09.2020 to 28.02.2021, no Application could have ever been filed considering section 10A of IBC. The Appellant’s submission that cumulatively application can be filed taking all amounts, cannot be accepted. The said submission goes contrary to the statutory scheme delineated by Section 10A proviso. When Appellant could not have filed the Application for the default which was committed, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Application as barred by Section 10A of the Code. In so far as the last two default on 31st March, 2021 and 30th April, 2021 is concerned, the Adjudicating Authority has noticed that the total amount of the aforesaid two defaults is only Rs. 37,50,000/- which is below the threshold as provided under Section 4 of the Code.

Amount of default which has been committed during Section 10A period cannot be clubbed in threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore under Section 4 of IBC – Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Transnational Growth Fund Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The Court should not permit Corporate Insolvency(CIRP) to go on, which has been initiated to settle family business dispute – Mr. Jag Mohan Daga Vs. Mr. Bimal Kanti Chowdhary, IRP of M/s. Vindhya Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the offer made by the Appellant to pay entire demanded amount with interest has been refused by the Financial Creditor which clearly indicates that Financial Creditor is not interested in the debt or the Insolvency Resolution of the Corporate Debtor and wants the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) to be continued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Vidarbha Industries Private Limited Vs. Axis Bank Limited (2022) ibclaw.in 91 SC” has clearly laid down that it is not mandatory that Section 7 Application be admitted on proof of debt and default. In the facts of the present case without entering into other issues which has been raised by the parties, we find it a fit case where CIRP should not be allowed to continue when Financial Creditor proceeded for CIRP not for purposes of Resolution of Insolvency of the Corporate Debtor but for other purposes with some other agenda. The Court should not permit such CIRP to go on, which has been initiated to settle family business dispute.

The Court should not permit Corporate Insolvency(CIRP) to go on, which has been initiated to settle family business dispute – Mr. Jag Mohan Daga Vs. Mr. Bimal Kanti Chowdhary, IRP of M/s. Vindhya Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top