CoC-Change of Member Vote/View/opinion

A Successful Bidder of sale as Going Concern can seek access of the Adjudicating Authority and may pray for necessary directions in accord with and in consonance with the process document in the liquidation proceedings – Jasamrit Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Gian Chand Narang, Liquidator of Apex Buildsys Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 15 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that: (i) When the process document clearly contemplated such consequences the said consequences shall ensue on sale as going concern and if any roadblocks come into ways of successful resolution applicant, necessary directions, clarifications can very well be issued by the Adjudicating Authority on an Application filed under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code.
(ii) A successful bidder who is declared as successful bidder of sale as going concern can seek access of the Adjudicating Authority and may pray for necessary directions in accord with and in consonance with the process document in the liquidation proceedings.

A Successful Bidder of sale as Going Concern can seek access of the Adjudicating Authority and may pray for necessary directions in accord with and in consonance with the process document in the liquidation proceedings – Jasamrit Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Gian Chand Narang, Liquidator of Apex Buildsys Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Once a Resolution Plan approved & submitted to AA, CoC cannot turn around and pray to Adjudicating Authority to send the Rplan back for consideration and CoC cannot be allowed to change its view – Express Resorts and Hotels Ltd. Vs. Amit Jain, RP, Neesa Leisure Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 35 minutes of reading

In this landmark judgment, NCLAT has cleared that when a Resolution Plan, has been approved after due deliberations, in exercise of commercial wisdom of the CoC, it has to be accepted that Corporate Debtor was decided to be revived by the Resolution Plan. The mere fact that certain other offers have been received after the approval of the Resolution Plan, CoC cannot have a change of heart and start clamoring before the Adjudicating Authority that they have no objection to sending back the Resolution Plan for reconsideration. This will be permitting an unending process, since by passing of time situation keeps on changing. After coming to know about the financial offer in a Plan, which has been approved by the CoC, any subsequent offer by any entity, who did not participate in the process earlier, cannot be entertained.

Once a Resolution Plan approved & submitted to AA, CoC cannot turn around and pray to Adjudicating Authority to send the Rplan back for consideration and CoC cannot be allowed to change its view – Express Resorts and Hotels Ltd. Vs. Amit Jain, RP, Neesa Leisure Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If there is no provision in IBC to deal with a situation, Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016 cannot be applied which operate in altogether different sphere – Shailaja Vaibhav Patil Vs. CMA Harshad S. Deshpande – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 11 minutes of reading

The resolution plan submitted by M/s Galactico Cooperative Services Ltd. and P.L. Adke were strongly opposed by Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. having 81.45% voting share and a decision was taken in the 10th CoC meeting held on 21.01.2020 for initiation of liquidation proceedings. The RP filed the application under Section 33 of the Code which was allowed on 16.12.2020. It was during the pendency of these appeals, the assignment deed dated 05.04.2022 has come into being as per which the Appellant (City Co-Operative Credit And Capital Limited) has acquired the voting share of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. and has acquired 100 % voting share. In these circumstances, it is sought to be argued that despite the fact that CoC has become funcutous officio, the order passed under Section 33 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the CoC for considering the resolution plan of P.L Adke.

If there is no provision in IBC to deal with a situation, Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016 cannot be applied which operate in altogether different sphere – Shailaja Vaibhav Patil Vs. CMA Harshad S. Deshpande – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The date of approval for Resolution Plan is fixed by the Committee of Creditors, they may fix the date of voting and in appropriate case they may extend the period of voting – Mr. Sharad Sanghi Vs. Ms. Vandana Garg & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 19 minutes of reading

Followings important points:
1. CoC may fix the date of voting for approval of Resolution Plan and in appropriate case they may extend the period of voting.

2. Whether a member who has already opined, after final decision, can change its opinion or not?

3. The period of non-joining of the Interim Resolution Professional should be excluded for the purpose of counting the total period of 180 days or 270 days

4. Distinguished between the First Charge holder and the Second charge holder

The date of approval for Resolution Plan is fixed by the Committee of Creditors, they may fix the date of voting and in appropriate case they may extend the period of voting – Mr. Sharad Sanghi Vs. Ms. Vandana Garg & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top