Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226-High Court

An unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law – Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Vs. Farooq Ali Khan and Ors. – Supreme Court

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

An unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law – Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Vs. Farooq Ali Khan and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Can a single lender settle the dues under RBI Framework after admission of insolvency petition? | Can an application for withdrawal from CIRP be entertained after the CoC approves the Resolution Plan? | Is writ petition maintainable even the efficacious statutory remedy under section 60(5) of the IBC available? – Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. – Telangana High Court

The Hon’ble Telangana High Court held that:
(i) The IBC does not provide for such a scenario that the borrowing entity/ Corporate Debtor can negotiate with only one of the creditors in the CoC to the exclusion of the other creditors.
(ii) The RBI Framework recognizes the precedence of the relevant statute (the IBC in this case) and that any settlement must be done within the statutory framework of the IBC.
(iii) The writ petition is also not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy under section 60(5) of the IBC which is a comprehensive Code envisaging all possible scenarios and modes of redress within the four corners of the IBC.

Can a single lender settle the dues under RBI Framework after admission of insolvency petition? | Can an application for withdrawal from CIRP be entertained after the CoC approves the Resolution Plan? | Is writ petition maintainable even the efficacious statutory remedy under section 60(5) of the IBC available? – Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. – Telangana High Court Read Post »

High Court has no justification to direct the deferment of the CIRP in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Committee of Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court

In this case, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court, matter related to consolidated of CIRPs, directed petitioner to file an appropriate application before NCLT and raise all grounds available under law. It was also held that until such time, the Resolution Process shall be deferred.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court declined to grant the main relief which was sought in the petition for the consolidation of the CIRP of three corporate entities. After coming to that conclusion, there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 by directing the deferment of the CIRP. Such a direction under Article 226 breaches the discipline of the law which has been laid down in the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

High Court has no justification to direct the deferment of the CIRP in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Committee of Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

If Municipal Corporation did not lodge its claim in respect of Property Tax dues against the Corporate Debtor during CIRP, any statutory dues prior to the date on which Resolution Plan is approved cannot be demanded/recovered – Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
(i) In essence, once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC, all stakeholders including Central Government, any State Government or any local authority are bound by its terms, and any claims or dues including statutory dues owed to the governmental agencies which are not a part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished.
(ii) In the present case, the MCD did not lodge its claim in respect of property tax dues against the petitioner during the CIRP. Admittedly, the claim of the MCD is not a part of the approved resolution plan. Consequently, prima facie, any statutory dues owed to the MCD by the petitioner prior to the date on which the resolution plan is approved i.e. 26.03.2021, cannot be demanded/recovered.

If Municipal Corporation did not lodge its claim in respect of Property Tax dues against the Corporate Debtor during CIRP, any statutory dues prior to the date on which Resolution Plan is approved cannot be demanded/recovered – Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available – Gopal Krishnan MS and Anr. Vs. Ravindra Beleyur and Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court declines to entertain a SLP holding that since the impugned order of the NCLAT is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC. The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available.

The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available – Gopal Krishnan MS and Anr. Vs. Ravindra Beleyur and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

When Adjudicating Authority has allowed Liquidator to prosecute on behalf of Corporate Debtor as per Sec. 33(5) of IBC, Liquidator is fully entitled to peruse Writ Petition on behalf of Corporate Debtor – CA Rajeev Bansal Liquidator of Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, an IA filed by Liquidator to seeking permission to defend all of any of the suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings etc. was allowed by NCLT, however, subsequent IA filed for maintainability of a writ petition was dismissed by AA.

Hon’ble NCLAT holds that:

(i) There cannot be any exception to requirement of law as contained in Section 33(5) of the Code i.e. legal proceeding may be instituted by the liquidator, on behalf of the corporate debtor, with the prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority.
(ii) When the application was filed by the Liquidator, this was with intent and purpose to obtain prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority to instituted legal proceeding on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, which application was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. The subsequent application became necessary as the objection was raised to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that there is no prior approval with regard to filing of the Writ petition.
(ii) Order is set aside. I.A. is allowed holding that the proceedings which was initiated by the Liquidator by filing Writ Petition was fully covered by the approval as given by the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 28.04.2022.

When Adjudicating Authority has allowed Liquidator to prosecute on behalf of Corporate Debtor as per Sec. 33(5) of IBC, Liquidator is fully entitled to peruse Writ Petition on behalf of Corporate Debtor – CA Rajeev Bansal Liquidator of Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top