Default-Clubbing of payment/agreements/Order for Section 7 or 9 threshold limit

When separate Purchase Orders issued by three associated companies, mere fact that parent company is same, all the invoices cannot be clubbed to meet the threshold of Rs. 1 cr. u/s 4 of IBC – Novacare Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Operational Creditor filed petition u/s 9 of IBC by clubbing the claims in Purchase Orders which were issued against the three associated companies have different CIN and separate assets and liabilities.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Section 9 application and held that the claim cannot be clubbed.

Hon’ble NCLAT affirms the decision of NCLT holding that when separate Purchase Orders were issued by the three hospitals, as noted in the order and invoices were also issued separately, the mere fact that parent company of the three hospitals is same, the Appellant cannot club all the invoices and try to complete the threshold by claiming debt of Rs.1,02,20,129/- whereas with regard to each invoice threshold is not complete, as observed by the Adjudicating Authority.

When separate Purchase Orders issued by three associated companies, mere fact that parent company is same, all the invoices cannot be clubbed to meet the threshold of Rs. 1 cr. u/s 4 of IBC – Novacare Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the threshold requirement of Rs. one crore under Section 4 of IBC is in individual or joint capacity where joint CIRP applications filed? – Mr. Nethi Jagadish Reddy and Ors. Vs. APITCO Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that filing of joint application raises the question as to whether the threshold requirement of Rs.one crore under Section 4 is in individual or joint capacity. Claim of each individual workman/employee needed to meet Section 4 threshold requirements. The judgement in Mr. Suresh Narayan Singh supra has been followed in Sadashiv Nomaya Naik and other v. M/s.Gammon Engineers & Contractors Private Limited (2023) ibclaw.in 455 NCLAT, held that each individual has to meet the requirements of Section 4.

Whether the threshold requirement of Rs. one crore under Section 4 of IBC is in individual or joint capacity where joint CIRP applications filed? – Mr. Nethi Jagadish Reddy and Ors. Vs. APITCO Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Multiple Purchase Orders can be clubbed in a single company application under Section 9 of IBC and the same is maintainable – MM Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. Clean Flow Cooling Tower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT Mumbai Bench held that a single Petition covering several Purchase Orders of the same Operational Creditor is allowed to be filed as there is nothing in the Code barring the same. This practice of filing a single Petition would in fact have the advantage of reducing multiplicity of litigation. t can be safely concluded that multiple purchase orders can be clubbed in a single application and the same is maintainable.

Multiple Purchase Orders can be clubbed in a single company application under Section 9 of IBC and the same is maintainable – MM Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. Clean Flow Cooling Tower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Joint application under Section 7 of IBC can be filed against one or more Corporate Debtors who have come together to develop a Real Estate project and parameters as noticed in Videocon Industries Ltd. and BT & FC Pvt Ltd. cases need not be applied in case of Real Estate Project – Mist Avenue Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Batra & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) CIRP in the Real Estate Project has different contours and ramification.
(ii) Consolidated Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated against one or more Corporate Debtors who have come together to develop a project.
(iii) Parameters as were noticed in SBI vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. (2019) ibclaw.in 17 NCLT and Radico Khaitan Ltd Vs. BT & FC Pvt Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 160 NCLAT need not be applied in case of Real Estate Project.
(iv) Requirement of threshold under proviso in Section 7(1) must be fulfilled as on the date of filing of the Application.
(v) Claim of allottees who are barred by time should not be excluded from number of 100 which is required to be proved the threshold
(vi) Allottees settled the matter cannot be excluded in the counting of 100 allottees which are required to be fulfilled as threshold. The mere fact that claim of some other barred by time is insignificant.

Joint application under Section 7 of IBC can be filed against one or more Corporate Debtors who have come together to develop a Real Estate project and parameters as noticed in Videocon Industries Ltd. and BT & FC Pvt Ltd. cases need not be applied in case of Real Estate Project – Mist Avenue Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Batra & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can Operational Creditors file CIRP application u/s 9 of IBC jointly to meet the threshold limit u/s 4 of IBC – Mr. Shailesh S Shenoy Vs. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

This Company Petition is filed by ex-employees of Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. jointly, (Operational Creditors) seeking to initiate CIRP against Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) by invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority held that the facts of the case are identical to Sadashiv Nomaya Nayak & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 455 NCLAT, therefore, there is no merit in the present Company Petition. This Bench has no hesitation in holding that the claims of the Operational Creditor if considered individually in the above Company Petition do not meet the threshold limit and the Company Petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

Can Operational Creditors file CIRP application u/s 9 of IBC jointly to meet the threshold limit u/s 4 of IBC – Mr. Shailesh S Shenoy Vs. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Joint application u/s 7 of IBC by two Financial Creditors to meet threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore as per Section 4 of IBC – Hi-Tech Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Sai Car Sales Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Adjudicating Authority referred judgment of Hon’ble High Court Rajasthan in Vishnu Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2022) ibclaw.in 166 HC and admitted the application filed under section 7 of IBC.

Joint application u/s 7 of IBC by two Financial Creditors to meet threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore as per Section 4 of IBC – Hi-Tech Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Sai Car Sales Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Whether CIRP can be initiated solely on the basis of the amount of interest when the entire principal amount of debt has been paid by the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of CIRP application? – M/s. Rashtriya Polymers & Solvents Vs. M/s. Kanodia Technoplast Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-IV

The Adjudicating Authority held that: (i) When by the date of admission, the Operational Debt in terms of Section 5(21), which does not include interest, stands discharged, the interest alone which remains under the claim amount, does not qualify for an Operational Debt, for the default of which alone CIRP can be ordered. When admittedly the principal amount is paid, Operational Debt ceases to be in existence and consequently Application under section 9 becomes invalid.
(ii) The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the present application filed under section 9 of the IBC as not maintainable since the Principal amount has entirely been paid during the pendency of the application and the issue is only regarding to interest outstanding.

Whether CIRP can be initiated solely on the basis of the amount of interest when the entire principal amount of debt has been paid by the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of CIRP application? – M/s. Rashtriya Polymers & Solvents Vs. M/s. Kanodia Technoplast Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-IV Read Post »

Debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit under Section 4 of IBC – Wam India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SN Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Adjudicating Authority found that in case of M/s. A2 Interiors Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 214 NCLT, the Principal Bench had allowed the petition holding that debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit. On perusal of the documents submitted by the Applicant, it is clear that financial debt amounting to more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant. There is default by the Corporate Debtor in payment of debt amount. Therefore, we find that it is a fit case for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, and that the petition is filed within the limitation period. This Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Company Petition filed by the Operational Creditor and that there is a Debt due & payable by the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the Application filed by the Operational Creditor is liable to be admitted.

Debts arising from different work order(s) can be clubbed to satisfy the minimum threshold limit under Section 4 of IBC – Wam India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SN Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Whether all the workmen can together by adding their amount which is being claimed against the Corporate Debtor can cross the threshold set up under Section 4 of the Code – Sadashiv Nomaya Nayak & Ors. Vs. Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Whether all the workmen can together by adding their amount which is being claimed against the Corporate Debtor can cross the threshold set up under Section 4 of the Code – Sadashiv Nomaya Nayak & Ors. Vs. Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top