CA-419 (3)

An order approving the Resolution Plan was passed by a Single Member of the NCLT – Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) and Others Vs. Suchi Paper Mills Ltd. and Others – Supreme Court

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

An order approving the Resolution Plan was passed by a Single Member of the NCLT – Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) and Others Vs. Suchi Paper Mills Ltd. and Others – Supreme Court Read Post »

Section 60(2) of IBC contemplate filing of Insolvency application for Personal Guarantor before NCLT or its Benches and not to a particular Court Room of NCLT where CIRP against Corporate Debtor is pending – Bhavesh Harkishandas Mehta Vs. Kookmin Bank and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this important judgment, two issues before NCLAT for consideration:

(i) Whether when an insolvency proceeding is pending in different Court Room of a particular Bench of NCLT, if the proceedings under Section 95 of IBC have been entertained by another Court of the same Bench, the order passed under Section 95 application by the court different from Court where insolvency proceeding is pending, is without jurisdiction?
(ii) Whether Section 60(2) of IBC contemplate application for personal guarantor before NCLT or its Benches or it contemplates filing of Section 95 application in the same court room of the NCLT?

Section 60(2) of IBC contemplate filing of Insolvency application for Personal Guarantor before NCLT or its Benches and not to a particular Court Room of NCLT where CIRP against Corporate Debtor is pending – Bhavesh Harkishandas Mehta Vs. Kookmin Bank and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Until and unless a notification is issued under the first proviso to Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 the single judicial member cannot take upon itself the jurisdiction to entertain an application – Suchi Paper Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ashish Gupta RP in the Matter of Anush Finlease and Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, two unnumbered applications came to be filed one by the RP and other by the Resolution Applicant seeking approval of the resolution plan approved by the CoC of the Corporate Debtor with 77.54%. Both unnumbered applications have been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority on 01.04.2020 (during COVID period) by single bench.

NCLAT New Delhi held that:

(i) It is very much clear from the bare reading of Section 419(3) of the Act that the powers of the Tribunal shall be exercisable by Benches consisting of two Members out of whom one shall be a Judicial Member and the other shall be a Technical Member but still a single Judicial Member can exercise the powers of the Tribunal in respect of such class of cases or such matters pertaining to such class of cases, as the President may, by general or special order, specify.

(ii) Until and unless a notification is issued under the first proviso to Section 419(3) the single judicial member cannot take upon itself the jurisdiction to entertain an application such like the one in hand and decide the same, therefore, the impugned order has been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction.

Until and unless a notification is issued under the first proviso to Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 the single judicial member cannot take upon itself the jurisdiction to entertain an application – Suchi Paper Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ashish Gupta RP in the Matter of Anush Finlease and Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top