NCLAT-New Delhi

Section 33(2) of the IBC leaves hardly any choice to the Adjudicating Authority, once the CoC decide with the 66% voting rights to liquidate the Corporate Debtor – Amrit Rajani Vs. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Section 33(2) of the IBC leaves hardly any choice to the Adjudicating Authority, once the CoC decide with the 66% voting rights to liquidate the Corporate Debtor – Amrit Rajani Vs. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Does NCLT have jurisdiction to direct the valuation of shares sold by Liquidator of a foreign Subsidiary Company of Corporate Debtor? – State Bank of India Vs. Shantanu Prakash and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLT held that the order on liquidation on EAPPL was passed by the High Court of Singapore, therefore, any issue regarding the liquidation proceedings including sale value of the shares held by the Subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor sold by SBI with the consent of the liquidators of the Subsidiary could have been raised in liquidation proceedings of the Subsidiary before the High Court of Singapore as the assets in question were owned by the Subsidiary and not by the Corporate Debtor.

Does NCLT have jurisdiction to direct the valuation of shares sold by Liquidator of a foreign Subsidiary Company of Corporate Debtor? – State Bank of India Vs. Shantanu Prakash and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If security trustees are holding Security on behalf of Lender, the Lenders can enforce the security documents even if they are not a party to the trusteeship agreement | Section 100 (2) of IBC is applicable if repayment plan is prepared by the debtor under Section 105 of the Code then opportunity should be offered to the debtor | Is a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act an invocation of personal guarantee? – Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Vs. State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) From the terms of the Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and the Security Trustee Agreement (STA), it is clear that the security trustees are holding ‘Security’ not for themselves, but on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the Claimant/Lender. The Lenders, can therefore, enforce the security documents even if they are not a party to the trusteeship agreement.’
(ii) NCLAT does not appreciate the arguments of the Appellant on this account based on argument that mere fact that the case is pending before the DRT and certain counter claims have been filed by the Appellant will not make debts payable by the Appellant as debts not have been crystalised.
(iii) Section 100 (2) of IBC is applicable if repayment plan is prepared by the debtor under Section 105 of the Code then opportunity should be offered to the debtor.

If security trustees are holding Security on behalf of Lender, the Lenders can enforce the security documents even if they are not a party to the trusteeship agreement | Section 100 (2) of IBC is applicable if repayment plan is prepared by the debtor under Section 105 of the Code then opportunity should be offered to the debtor | Is a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act an invocation of personal guarantee? – Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Vs. State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Distribution amongst Secured Creditors on the basis of charge on the security interest of individual Creditors or as per admitted debt of Secured Creditors on pro-rata basis? – State Bank of India Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is of the view that Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in directing distribution of sale proceeds as per the admitted claim of the Financial Creditor pro-rata basis and the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority is in accordance with law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Metaliks Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 87 SC.

Distribution amongst Secured Creditors on the basis of charge on the security interest of individual Creditors or as per admitted debt of Secured Creditors on pro-rata basis? – State Bank of India Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can only one Secured Creditor enforce his right to realise its debt out of secured assets under Section 52 of the IBC? | Does registration of the charge under Section 77 of the Companies Act improve or play a role when it comes to the question of the priorities of the charge? – Avil Menezes Liquidator of Sunil Hitech and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, clearly protect the right of first charge holder.
(ii) Only one secured creditor can enforce his right to realise its debt out of secured assets under Section 52 of the Code.
(iii) The arguments of the Respondent w.r.t. his holding first charge on movable assets of Corporate Debtor due to charge registered with RoC are not attractive.

Can only one Secured Creditor enforce his right to realise its debt out of secured assets under Section 52 of the IBC? | Does registration of the charge under Section 77 of the Companies Act improve or play a role when it comes to the question of the priorities of the charge? – Avil Menezes Liquidator of Sunil Hitech and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether workmen are entitled to the salary till insolvency commencement date in case of factory layoff/ Closed prior to commencement of CIRP? – Drish Shoes Workers Union Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. through its RP – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that non-computation of salary after lay off by the Resolution Professional cannot be faulted with since the Resolution Professional has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that whether the Workers are entitled to claim their dues for the layoff period under provisions of Industrial Dispute Act is not in the domain of the Adjudicating Authority.

Whether workmen are entitled to the salary till insolvency commencement date in case of factory layoff/ Closed prior to commencement of CIRP? – Drish Shoes Workers Union Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. through its RP – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

When last day of limitation falls on a public holiday, the said period shall be excluded from calculation of period u/s 61 of IBC – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Mohit Kumar – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that the law as provided in the Limitation Act as well as Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 is that when last day of limitation falls on a public holiday, the said period shall be excluded. Thus, when last days of limitation i.e. 30th day is falling on public holiday, benefit of said public holiday can be extended to the applicant. The submission of the Appellant that all Saturdays and Sundays which are falling within 45 days should be excluded is clearly an absurd argument and not as per the benefit available in Limitation Act as well as Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

When last day of limitation falls on a public holiday, the said period shall be excluded from calculation of period u/s 61 of IBC – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Mohit Kumar – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether 180 days moratorium period prescribed under Section 101(1) of the IBC is directory or mandatory, and whether it can be extended by Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal? – Anil Kumar Vs. Mukund Choudhary – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Conceding any power to the Adjudicating Authority or this Tribunal to extend the said period shall be plainly against the statutory scheme of Section 101(1).
(ii) When the statutory scheme is clear and unambiguous, there is no role of any interpretive process to find out the jurisdiction of NCLT to extend the period of Moratorium when statute provides a date for cessation of the Moratorium it cannot be extended by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Tribunal against the statutory intendment under Section 101(1).

Whether 180 days moratorium period prescribed under Section 101(1) of the IBC is directory or mandatory, and whether it can be extended by Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal? – Anil Kumar Vs. Mukund Choudhary – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top