CIRP [Main]

When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute | Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring pre-existing dispute before NCLT – German Solar Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Zytech Solar India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) The contract can be either oral or written. When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute.
(ii) Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring relevant materials before the adjudicating authority to establish that there is pre-existing dispute which may lead to the rejection of Section 9 application.
(iii) Pre-existing dispute employed under the IBC cannot be equated with even the principle of preponderance of probability which guides a civil court at the stage of finally decreeing a suit.
(iv) The IBC is not intended to be a substitute for a recovery forum.

When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute | Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) of IBC having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring pre-existing dispute before NCLT – German Solar Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. Zytech Solar India Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Resolution Professional cannot accept any claim which has been adjudicated during the moratorium – The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Mr. Rajendra Jain, RP of Kimaya Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that the applicant being the EPF authority has raised certain demands which were adjudicated during the CIRP period which was after the initiation of the moratorium under Sec. 14(1) of IBC, when no assessment proceedings can be continued by the applicant irrespective of whether certain documents were sought from the Resolution Professional. This does not, however, as per Sec. 33 (5) prohibit the applicant to continue with or even initiation of proceedings after the liquidation order is passed. When the liquidation order is passed, the moratorium ends which enables the protected assets of the Corporate Debtor to be free of any further consideration under liquidation estate.

Resolution Professional cannot accept any claim which has been adjudicated during the moratorium – The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Mr. Rajendra Jain, RP of Kimaya Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

The power of re-call does not mean to hear the case – Mr. Chintala Maipal Reddy and Ors. Vs. Mr. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty Liquidator of Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

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

The power of re-call does not mean to hear the case – Mr. Chintala Maipal Reddy and Ors. Vs. Mr. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty Liquidator of Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Whether the admission of Corporate Debtor into CIRP can be kept in abeyance based on the order of Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd? – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

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

Whether the admission of Corporate Debtor into CIRP can be kept in abeyance based on the order of Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd? – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Is an application under Section 7 of the IBC maintainable against the interest portion only? – Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Sunblink Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the present petition has been filed on the basis of default in payment of interest on the amounts due arising for the period after the 10A period in terms of clause 4.1 and 4.2 of Loan Agreement. The said amount in default is in excess of Rs. 1.00 crores and default is stated to have taken place on 12.02.2024 i.e. after 15 working days subsequent to the issuance of the Demand Notice dated 25.01.2024. There has been a financial debt in respect of which default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor and further that the Application has been filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the Application u/s 7 of the Code, deserves to be admitted.

Is an application under Section 7 of the IBC maintainable against the interest portion only? – Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Sunblink Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

ITAT remands the appeal to the Assessing Officer to take necessary action as per Section 156A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bhushan Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT Central – ITAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble ITAT, New Delhi referring Section 14 of IBC and Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Ors., (2021) ibclaw.in 54 SC case, held that in the present facts of the case, the resolution plan is yet to be finalized. As per the newly inserted provisions of Section 156A of the Income Tax Act 1961, it is necessary to remand the appeal to the Ld. AO to take necessary steps/action as per Rules.

ITAT remands the appeal to the Assessing Officer to take necessary action as per Section 156A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bhushan Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT Central – ITAT New Delhi Read Post »

Distribution amongst Secured Creditors on the basis of charge on the security interest of individual Creditors or as per admitted debt of Secured Creditors on pro-rata basis? – State Bank of India Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is of the view that Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in directing distribution of sale proceeds as per the admitted claim of the Financial Creditor pro-rata basis and the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority is in accordance with law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Metaliks Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 87 SC.

Distribution amongst Secured Creditors on the basis of charge on the security interest of individual Creditors or as per admitted debt of Secured Creditors on pro-rata basis? – State Bank of India Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether workmen are entitled to the salary till insolvency commencement date in case of factory layoff/ Closed prior to commencement of CIRP? – Drish Shoes Workers Union Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. through its RP – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that non-computation of salary after lay off by the Resolution Professional cannot be faulted with since the Resolution Professional has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that whether the Workers are entitled to claim their dues for the layoff period under provisions of Industrial Dispute Act is not in the domain of the Adjudicating Authority.

Whether workmen are entitled to the salary till insolvency commencement date in case of factory layoff/ Closed prior to commencement of CIRP? – Drish Shoes Workers Union Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. through its RP – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top