Adjudicating Authority & Appeals

Once an insolvency professional is appointed to manage the company, the erstwhile directors who are no longer in management, obviously cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of the company- Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.- Supreme Court

First Landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court covering all aspects of IBC.

Once an insolvency professional is appointed to manage the company, the erstwhile directors who are no longer in management, obviously cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of the company- Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.- Supreme Court Read Post »

Interim Resolution Professional(IRP) has not been vested with any specific power to sue any person on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. However, in case of such difficulty, it is always open to the IRP to bring to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority for appropriate order – Steel Konnect (India) Private Limited Vs. M/s Hero Fincorp Limited – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that though the Board of Directors or partners of ‘Corporate Debtor’, as the case may be is suspended and their power can be exercised by the IRP, but such exercise of power is limited to the extent to sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the ‘I & B Code’ and not for any other purpose. If the matter is looked from another angle, it will be clear as to why ‘Corporate Debtor’ should not be represented through IRP for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of the ‘I & B Code’. The Role of ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ starts after initiation of CIRP against the ‘Corporate Debtor’. The IRP once given consent to function directly or indirectly he cannot challenge his own appointment, except in case where he has not given consent. If the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is left in the hands of IRP to raise his grievance by filing an appeal under Section 61, it will be futile, as no IRP will challenge the initiation of ‘Insolvency Resolution Process’ which ultimately result into the challenge of his appointment.

Interim Resolution Professional(IRP) has not been vested with any specific power to sue any person on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. However, in case of such difficulty, it is always open to the IRP to bring to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority for appropriate order – Steel Konnect (India) Private Limited Vs. M/s Hero Fincorp Limited – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLAT cannot utilise the inherent power recognised by Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise before it by the parties after admission of the matter- Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (P) Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) Vs. Nisus Finance & Investment Manager LLP- Supreme Court

In view of Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) could not utilise the inherent power recognised by Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled that a settlement can be considered and a case can be
withdrawn even after insolvency proceedings have started against a company on the merit of the case.

NCLAT cannot utilise the inherent power recognised by Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise before it by the parties after admission of the matter- Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (P) Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) Vs. Nisus Finance & Investment Manager LLP- Supreme Court Read Post »

Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 has not been adopted for the purpose of the Code, 2016 and only Rules 20 to 26 have been adopted in absence of any specific inherent power and where there is no merit, the question of exercising inherent power does not arise – Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nisus Finance & Investment Manager LLP – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 has not been adopted for the purpose of the Code, 2016 and only Rules 20 to 26 have been adopted in absence of any specific inherent power and where there is no merit, the question of exercising inherent power does not arise – Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nisus Finance & Investment Manager LLP – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is excluded to proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? – Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. The Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department) and Ors. – Supreme Court of India

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is excluded to proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? – Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. The Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department) and Ors. – Supreme Court of India Read Post »

Scroll to Top