NCLT-Chennai Bench

There can be a position regarding the prosecution of avoidance application even after the resolution or closure of liquidation process – Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri. S A Prem Kumar and Anr. – NCLT Chennai Bench

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

There can be a position regarding the prosecution of avoidance application even after the resolution or closure of liquidation process – Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri. S A Prem Kumar and Anr. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Can Successful Bidder of Not Readily Realisable Asset (NRRA) be allowed to prosecute the avoidance application pending before NCLT? – Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri. S A Prem Kumar and Ors. – NCLT Chennai Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Chennai Bench held that the same analogy as in Kapil Wadbawan (2023) ibclaw.in 320 NCLAT shall be applicable with regard to the prosecution by the Successful Auction Purchaser in liquidation estate when the asset of the corporate debtor has been sold as a going concern and acquisition plan submitted by Successful Auction Purchaser has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, the substitution of the successful bidder of NRRA in the avoidance application can be allowed to give effect to provisions of the Code.

Can Successful Bidder of Not Readily Realisable Asset (NRRA) be allowed to prosecute the avoidance application pending before NCLT? – Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri. S A Prem Kumar and Ors. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Being Promoters/Directors are related parties to the Corporate Debtor cannot be a ground for non-payment of gratuity dues to them [Sec. 36(4) of IBC] | Once a claim has been admitted by Liquidator, s/he cannot escape from the settlement of such admitted claims on the grounds that the claimants are allegedly parties to avoidance transactions or related parties | Liquidator is not bound by the decision of the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC) – Mrs. Abirami Premkumar Vs. K. Sivalingam, The Liquidator of Cauvery Power Generation Chennai Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Chennai Bench held that:

(i) It is settled position in law that the powers conferred on the Liquidator is “quasi-judicial” and the Liquidator is not bound by the decision of the SCC. Once the claim has been admitted by the Liquidator in exercise of it quasi-judicial powers, the Liquidator cannot escape from the settlement of such admitted claims on the grounds that the claimants are allegedly parties to avoidance transactions or related to such parties. Such a view of denial of payment of admitted claims is not substantiated by the provisions of the Code or the relevant regulations.
(ii) Rights of the Applicants arising under Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in their capacity as an employee of the Corporate Debtor are independent of the rights of the Financial Creditors, if any, arising out of the personal guarantee contract.

Being Promoters/Directors are related parties to the Corporate Debtor cannot be a ground for non-payment of gratuity dues to them [Sec. 36(4) of IBC] | Once a claim has been admitted by Liquidator, s/he cannot escape from the settlement of such admitted claims on the grounds that the claimants are allegedly parties to avoidance transactions or related parties | Liquidator is not bound by the decision of the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC) – Mrs. Abirami Premkumar Vs. K. Sivalingam, The Liquidator of Cauvery Power Generation Chennai Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Can insolvency petition be filed against Carrier/Liner on loss accrued to Operational Creditor as a consequence of the wrongful delivery/ the liability arises out of breach of contract or tort? – Toram Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CMA CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Chennai Bench held that in the instant case, the Applicant has alleged that the liability arises out of tort committed by the carrier yet holds the Corporate Debtor liable for signing the Bill of Lading in the capacity of the agent of the Principal Company under contract law. At this stage, the issue is whether the Operational Creditor is entitled to a claim, if any, as a result of ‘breach of contract’ or ‘tort’. Further, even if the Applicant is entitled to any claim against the Principal Company, the liability of the Corporate Debtor as an agent of the Principal Company, has to be examined. These issues amount to civil dispute. This Tribunal, having only summary jurisdiction cannot decide the nature of the liability of the Principal Company, if any, that arises as a result of the alleged wrongful delivery of cargo container.

Can insolvency petition be filed against Carrier/Liner on loss accrued to Operational Creditor as a consequence of the wrongful delivery/ the liability arises out of breach of contract or tort? – Toram Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CMA CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

There is no bar on the Financial Creditor to initiate proceedings under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 when Debt Recovery Certificate is issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – State Bank of India Vs. Mr. R. Vijay Kumar – NCLT Chennai Bench

The Respondent’s contention of transferring debt recovery proceedings to this Tribunal is unfounded. The IBC, 2016 does not envisage such transfer of debt proceeding from DRT to this tribunal under Section 60(3). Further, the contention of Res Judicata and Double Jeopardy does not apply as there is no bar on the financial creditor to initiate proceedings under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 when Debt Recovery Certificate is issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal.

There is no bar on the Financial Creditor to initiate proceedings under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 when Debt Recovery Certificate is issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – State Bank of India Vs. Mr. R. Vijay Kumar – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top