Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Avon Containners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air Vision India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Nitin Batra and Ors. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »
Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi Bench held that the dispute with respect to forgery cannot be decided by this Adjudicating Authority. It is settled law that proceedings before NCLT are summary in nature and adversarial evidence cannot be led and appraised by this Tribunal. The Adjudicating Authority is not expected to ascertain the veracity of documents in a summary proceeding, if the Tribunal starts adjudicating these types of issues, then the purpose of the statute of enacting speedy disposal by the mechanism will be defeated.
Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi Bench referring judgment in Mr. Mandar Wagh, IRP of M/s. Synew Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2020) ibclaw.in 171 NCLT (Bengaluru Bench), Air Pegasus Pvt. Ltd. (2020) ibclaw.in 441 NCLT and Shyson Thomas vs. Mr. Madhugiri Venkatarayappa Sudarshan (2023) ibclaw.in 366 NCLAT held that the ultimate objective of Code is either to resolve the insolvency by way of Resolution Plan or to dissolve the Corporate Debtor, as expeditiously as possible so as to maximize the value of the assets. If the facts and circumstances of a case, justify, that it would not serve any purpose to keep the Corporate Debtor under regular CIRP proceedings, and thereafter under Liquidation proceedings, under the provisions of Code, the Adjudicating Authority, by exercising its inherent powers conferred under the Code read with Rule 11 of the NCLT, Rules, 2016, may pass appropriate order(s) in the interest of speedy justice.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
U P Telelinks Ltd. and Upkab Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Read Post »
Hon’ble NCLT New Delhi Bench held that the present application has been filed by the FC seeking refund of the Share Application Money issued to the CD. However, in light of the aforementioned precedent, the FC’s claim is barred, as the Share Application money cannot be deemed to be a Financial Debt. This Adjudicating Authority is of the opinion that it is not prudent to delve into the other contentions raised by the FC and CD at this stage, as the claim made by the FC itself is infructuous in light of the findings of the Hon’ble NCLAT.
NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI held that:
(i) CIRP Regulation 14(2) provides as to how the claim amount has to be determined.
(ii) The RP has vested with the power to revise the claim on the basis of the documents on record.
(iii) upon re-verification, it was found that the Applicant had not disclosed the facts of raising various debit notes, by the corporate debtors. It is stated by the RP that after adjusting the Debit Notes raised by the Corporate Debtors, the Ledger Accounts maintained by the Corporate Debtor in regard to the Applicant shows a balance payment of INR 34,049.19 only and the same was revised as per law.
(iv) the RP has not acted ultra vires, and we see no arbitrariness or illegality in the verification process followed by the Resolution Professional.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
In this case, a list of disqualified Directors was published on 15.09.2017 by RoC by which SRA was disqualified from being Directors from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2021. The SRA submitted the Resolution Plan on 20.03.2021. However, RoC list was quashed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court by order dated 29.09.2021.
NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-VI held that:
(i) The list was quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court only after the SRA had submitted the Resolution Plan.
(ii) On the date of the submission of the Resolution Plan, the SRA was disqualified to act as Director and hence not eligible to submit a Resolution Plan under section 29A of the IBC 2016.
(iii) The duty of the IRP is not limited to obtaining an undertaking that SRA is eligible to submit a Resolution Plan under section 29A of the Code, however a basic verification was in order.
(vi) The Resolution Plan and the SRA cannot be treated as distinct from each other and must be dealt with in conjunction.
(vii)Rejects the Resolution Plan. The IRP may conduct meeting of the CoC and can decide the further course of action in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT also held that the SRA has neither been convicted for a period of 2 years, nor is the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 mentioned under the 12th Schedule. Hence, the said conviction could not be a disqualification under section 29A of IBC 2016.
