61 (3) (ii)

The outcome of the avoidance transaction under Sections 43, 45, 47, 49, 50 of the Code cannot be given to the Successful Resolution Applicant and it must go to the Corporate Debtor’s Creditors – 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. Vs. The Administrator of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT allows the appeal against an order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench approving the Resolution Plan for DHFL in which it was stipulated that recoveries from Avoidance transactions enure to the benefit to Resolution Applicant. NCLAT holds that the term in the Resolution Plan that permits the Successful Resolution Applicant to appropriate recoveries, if any, from avoidance applications filed under Section 66 of the Code ought to be set aside. The Resolution Plan be sent back to the CoC for reconsideration on this aspect.

The outcome of the avoidance transaction under Sections 43, 45, 47, 49, 50 of the Code cannot be given to the Successful Resolution Applicant and it must go to the Corporate Debtor’s Creditors – 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. Vs. The Administrator of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

It is trite law that commercial wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of the processes within the timelines prescribed by the IBC – Ngaitlang Dhar Vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside NCLAT order and held that it is trite law that ‘commercial wisdom’ of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of the processes within the timelines prescribed by the IBC. It has been consistently held that it is not open to the Adjudicating Authority (the NCLT) or the Appellate Authority (the NCLAT) to take into consideration any other factor other than the one specified in Section 30(2) or Section 61(3) of the IBC. It has been held that the opinion expressed by the CoC after due deliberations in the meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is the collective business decision and that the decision of the CoC’s ‘commercial wisdom’ is non­ justiciable, except on limited grounds as are available for challenge under Section 30(2) or Section 61(3) of the IBC. This position of law has been consistently reiterated in a catena of judgments of this Court.

It is trite law that commercial wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of the processes within the timelines prescribed by the IBC – Ngaitlang Dhar Vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

NCLAT rejects plea of the Promoters, they are ready to pay the equal amount which is accepted by the Successful Resolution Applicant – Ronak Kundanlal Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Parthiv Parikh (RP of Sanghvi Forging and Engineering Ltd.) & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, on behalf of the Appellant representing shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, it is submitted that the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor are ready to pay the equal amount which is accepted by the Successful Resolution Applicant.

On behalf of RP/R-1, it is submitted that that the Appellants being a Shareholders have not raised any objection before the AA, therefore, they have no locus-standy to file this Appeal. It is also submitted that by the Impugned Order Ld. AA approved the Resolution Plan, therefore, in view of Section 61(3)(ii) the Appeal can only be filed on the grounds of material irregularity in exercise of powers by the Resolution Professional during the CIRP Period.  The CoC has approved the Resolution Plan by 100% voting share in favour of the Resolution Plan and the Ld. AA by the Impugned Order approved the Resolution Plan.

NCLAT dismissed the appeal & observed that the Appellants has failed to point out that there is any material irregularity in exercise of powers by the Resolution Professional during the CIRP Period. The Promoters are failed to comply their one-time settlement proposal till 31.12.2019.

NCLAT rejects plea of the Promoters, they are ready to pay the equal amount which is accepted by the Successful Resolution Applicant – Ronak Kundanlal Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Parthiv Parikh (RP of Sanghvi Forging and Engineering Ltd.) & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top