25 (2) (d)

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 »

Whether an Advocate/CA/ Company Secretary of Corporate Debtor can be permitted to attend the CoC meeting of the Corporate Debtor and whether the Respondent/Resolution Professional has to provide the copies of all the documents in connection with the CIRP? – M/s Propyl Packaging Limited Vs. Mr.George Varkey, Resolution Professional of Propyl Packaging Limited – NCLT Kochi Bench

NCLT held that the Resolution Professional has the power and responsibility to monitor and manage the operations and assets of the enterprise. The professional will manage the resolution process of negotiation to ensure balance of power between the creditors and debtor, in order to protect the rights of all creditors. The professional has to ensure the reduction of asymmetry of information between creditors and debtor in the resolution process. To get further clarity on this issue, this Tribunal gone through Section 24 of the Code.(p13-14)
This Section provides that if there are Financial Creditors to Corporate Debtor, only Financial Creditor can attend and vote in the meeting. Directors and partners can only attend the meeting of Committee but shall not have any right of voting and their absence does not invalidate any of the proceedings, which means that even if they are allowed to attend the meeting of Committee of Creditors, they will be only silent spectators and they have no say on any of the transactions in the proceedings.(p15). Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that by allowing the Advocate/ CA/ Company Secretary of the Corporate Debtor no purpose will be served.

Whether an Advocate/CA/ Company Secretary of Corporate Debtor can be permitted to attend the CoC meeting of the Corporate Debtor and whether the Respondent/Resolution Professional has to provide the copies of all the documents in connection with the CIRP? – M/s Propyl Packaging Limited Vs. Mr.George Varkey, Resolution Professional of Propyl Packaging Limited – NCLT Kochi Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top