18 (a)

In GoAir Insolvency, Delhi High Court allows Aircrafts’ Lessors to access Airports, carry out inspection and maintenance of 30 Aircrafts – Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. – Delhi High Court

In this case, the grievance of the lessors and owners of Aircrafts that have been leased to Go Air (India) Ltd. are that the DGCA has failed to deregister their Aircraft(s) in contravention of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 30 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
Hon’ble High Court held that there can also be no denial of the fact that the Aircrafts of the Petitioners are extremely valuable and highly sophisticated equipment and require regular maintenance for their preservation. Therefore, with a view to obviate any further losses, the following directions are being passed:
• (i) The Petitioners, their employees, agents, officers and/or representatives shall be permitted by the DGCA and the appropriate Airport Authorities to access the Airport(s) where the 30 Aircrafts are parked inter alia to inspect their respective Aircrafts, within the next 3 days;
• (ii) The Petitioners, their employees, agents, officers and/or representatives shall be permitted to carry out inspection and all maintenance tasks of the Aircraft, its engines and other parts and components, of all 30 Aircrafts, at least twice every month, until the final disposal of the Writ Petitions;
• (iii) Respondent/GoAir, its directors, employees, agents, officers and or representatives or the IRP/RP(s) or any person acting on their behalf, are hereby restrained from removing, replacing, taking out any accessories, parts, components or spares, etc. or any relevant operational or other Manuals /records, documentation from any of the 30 Aircraft, except with prior written approval of the Lessor of such Aircraft;
• (iv) The following additional directions shall be applicable to Aircraft MSN 6072: Respondent/DGCA shall permit the Respondent/RP to carry out the mandatory maintenance/engine runs of this Aircraft until its de-registration.

In GoAir Insolvency, Delhi High Court allows Aircrafts’ Lessors to access Airports, carry out inspection and maintenance of 30 Aircrafts – Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The word ‘relevant information’ referred in Section 29(1) of IBC is only an information required by the resolution applicant to make resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor – Kushal Ltd. Vs. Kartik Baldwa – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that in the explanation annexed to Section 29, the word ‘relevant information’ is explained. It means the information required by the resolution applicant to make the resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor which shall include financial position of the Corporate Debtor. All information relating to dispute against the Corporate Debtor on any other matter pertaining to the Corporate Debtor as may be specified. Therefore, the word ‘relevant information’ referred in Section 29 (1) of IBC is only an information required by the resolution applicant i.e. appellants herein to make resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor.

The word ‘relevant information’ referred in Section 29(1) of IBC is only an information required by the resolution applicant to make resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor – Kushal Ltd. Vs. Kartik Baldwa – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

As per Section 18 of IBC, Resolution Professional is only bound to include information for previous two years and not beyond – M/s Indian Sources Vs. M/s Vas Data Services Pvt. Ltd. Through RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III

Prayer regarding direction to the resolution Professional to provide the C-Forms for the Invoices, goods related to the year 2016, which is more than 2 years from the date of commencement of CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority held that from the plain reading of the Section 18 of the IBC, it is clear that the resolution professional is only bound to include information for previous two years and not beyond that and as per record, CIRP of Corporate Debtor commenced 09.04.2019, therefore, the resolution professional is duty bound to have financial position of Corporate Debtor for the year F.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and not for the year 2016.

As per Section 18 of IBC, Resolution Professional is only bound to include information for previous two years and not beyond – M/s Indian Sources Vs. M/s Vas Data Services Pvt. Ltd. Through RP – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III Read Post »

Proceeding on fraudulent transactions under 66 of IBC can be initiated even in the absence of any Transaction Audit. IRP have the power to collect information and furnish a detailed analysis to the Adjudicating Authority – Mr. Nitin Bharal Ex-Director/Promoter Vs. Stockflow Express Pvt. Ltd. Through Liquidator, Mr. Sanjay Gupta – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was no Transaction Audit and hence the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have given a finding of fraudulent transaction under Section 66 of the Code is unsustainable. If the IRP/RP has prima facie suspicion of any fraudulent transactions, as defined under the Code, have a recourse to approach the Adjudicating Authority for necessary action. To reiterate, the debts written off to defraud the Creditors, the cash transaction post their resignation evidencing their financial control in the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, clearly establish that they are fraudulent transaction done with a wilful intention of financial gain at the cost of negatively effecting the Creditors.

Proceeding on fraudulent transactions under 66 of IBC can be initiated even in the absence of any Transaction Audit. IRP have the power to collect information and furnish a detailed analysis to the Adjudicating Authority – Mr. Nitin Bharal Ex-Director/Promoter Vs. Stockflow Express Pvt. Ltd. Through Liquidator, Mr. Sanjay Gupta – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

No time limit for look back period has been given for consideration by AA of transactions which can be termed fraudulent transactions, under the provisions of Section 66 of the IBC 2016 – Amit Dineschandra Patel Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain RP of Sintex Prefab & Infra Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

The Adjudicating Authority observed that once the CIRP sets in, the management of the company passes in the hands of RP and COC. The suspended management has no role to play. The time limits of look back period given in Section 43 and Section 50 of IBC are to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority while considering the applications, if any, filed under the said Sections. It is worthwhile to note that no time limit for look back period has been given for consideration by Adjudicating Authority of transactions which can be termed fraudulent transactions, under the provisions of Section 66 of the IBC 2016.

No time limit for look back period has been given for consideration by AA of transactions which can be termed fraudulent transactions, under the provisions of Section 66 of the IBC 2016 – Amit Dineschandra Patel Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain RP of Sintex Prefab & Infra Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

No claim can be admitted after approval of Resolution Plan even GST dues Show Cause Notice was issued – The Commissioner of Central Taxes Goods & Service Tax Vs. C.S. Ashish Singh & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the matter of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited through the Authorised Signatory Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (2021) ibclaw.in 54 SC that once the Resolution Plan has been approved and implemented, no further claims will lie or can be considered. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are quite clear that the claim of the Appellant cannot be considered at this stage. We do not find any reason to interfere with the Impugned Order dated 25.9.2020. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission.

No claim can be admitted after approval of Resolution Plan even GST dues Show Cause Notice was issued – The Commissioner of Central Taxes Goods & Service Tax Vs. C.S. Ashish Singh & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the amount of uninvoked corporate guarantee could be considered as claim as per the provisions of the Code – Esspee Sarees Private Limited  Vs. Skipper Textiles Pvt. Ltd – NCLT Kolkata Bench

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

Whether the amount of uninvoked corporate guarantee could be considered as claim as per the provisions of the Code – Esspee Sarees Private Limited  Vs. Skipper Textiles Pvt. Ltd – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top