TimeLimit-Cases related to after 330 days

Whether CoC can withdraw a liquidation application filed before the Adjudicating Authority in order to consider a fresh Resolution Plan | Whether fresh Resolution Plan can be allowed to be submitted after the expiry of 270 days period prescribed under the IBC – Arun Kumar Gupta, RP of Reform Ferro Cast Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench referring the decision in the matter of Anil Kumar Vs. Jayesh Sanghrajaka, RP (2023) ibclaw.in 494 NCLAT and Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd & Anr. v/s Union of India (2019) ibclaw.in 03 SC held that liquidation is to be opted only in two scenarios i.e no resolution plan or the resolution plans submitted are not up to the mark.

The Bench also held that not only can the CoC withdraw a liquidation application in case a viable resolution plan becomes available for consideration, but also that the time limit prescribed under section 12 of the Code will not come in the way of the CoC achieving the object of value maximisation of the Corporate Debtor.

Whether CoC can withdraw a liquidation application filed before the Adjudicating Authority in order to consider a fresh Resolution Plan | Whether fresh Resolution Plan can be allowed to be submitted after the expiry of 270 days period prescribed under the IBC – Arun Kumar Gupta, RP of Reform Ferro Cast Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Can claims of Tax Assessment Orders passed during moratorium under Section 14 & 33(5) of IBC be considered as Unsecured Operational Debt whereas claims under the same statute related prior to admission of CIRP are being treated as Secured Creditor? – Commissioner of State Tax Department Vs. Ramchandra Dallaram Chaudhary Liquidator of Anil Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this important judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) Claim related to Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 are treated as unsecured since The Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 does not contain any part-materia stipulation akin to Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
(ii) The assessment orders passed after the imposition of Moratorium under Section 14 of the Code tantamount to violation of Section 14 of the Code.
(iii) Assessment orders passed after passing of liquidation order under VAT Act violates the moratorium under provision of 33(5) of the Code.
(iv) The Claims of Assessment Orders passed during the moratorium under Section 14 & 33(5) of the Code, have been rightly considered and admitted as Unsecured Operational Debt.
(v) Time period of 330 days prescribed in the Code is indicative and directory in nature and not mandatory.
(vi) The Tax Department during the moratorium period could determine the tax, interest, fine or any penalty which is due, however, it could not be enforced for recovery or levy of interest on the tax due during the period of Moratorium.

Can claims of Tax Assessment Orders passed during moratorium under Section 14 & 33(5) of IBC be considered as Unsecured Operational Debt whereas claims under the same statute related prior to admission of CIRP are being treated as Secured Creditor? – Commissioner of State Tax Department Vs. Ramchandra Dallaram Chaudhary Liquidator of Anil Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can time period for the completion of the Insolvency and Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12 of IBC, be extended beyond 330 days? – Sharon Hills Residents Association Vs. K. Parameswaran Nair, RP Samson & Sons Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

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

Can time period for the completion of the Insolvency and Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12 of IBC, be extended beyond 330 days? – Sharon Hills Residents Association Vs. K. Parameswaran Nair, RP Samson & Sons Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Mr. Hitesh Goel RP of Supertech Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench

NCLT Principal Bench held that the Corporate Debtor being a Real Estate Project involving legitimate interests of various stakeholders including the homebuyers/ allottees, the issue related to exclusion of period while computing the CIRP period had to be seen from the prism of realism and pragmatic approach should have been adopted by the Adjudicating Authority, considering the fact that the exclusion is sought on the ground that the litigations in respect to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor was sub-judice before the Hon‘ble Apex Court.

Mr. Hitesh Goel RP of Supertech Ltd. – NCLT Principal Bench Read Post »

Whether CoC can take decision to re-publish Form G(EOI) prior to expiry of 330 days of CIRP time limit even one Resolution Plan is available for consideration – Mr. Ramneek Goel Vs. Mr. Sunil Bajaj – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT has affirmed the decision of the NCLT Chandigarh Bench and held that:
(i) The present is a case where the Resolution Plan of the Appellant was under consideration, when RP received an email from Respondent No.1 offering Rs.27.06 crores, which information was placed by RP before the CoC. The Appellant was asked to increase its offer, which he denied. The CoC decided to re-publish Form-G after due deliberations.
(ii) The present is not a case where CoC accepted the Resolution Plan of Respondent No.1 and proceeded to examine the Resolution Plan.
(iii) The present is a case where 300 days were expiring on 15.04.2021 and prior to expiry of the 300 days period, a decision was taken to re-publish Form-G. The CoC has reason to take a decision since they received an email from Respondent No.1 offering higher value.
(iv) The Adjudicating Authority has full authority to examine all issues arising out of insolvency resolution process including issue of alleged breach of confidentiality.

Whether CoC can take decision to re-publish Form G(EOI) prior to expiry of 330 days of CIRP time limit even one Resolution Plan is available for consideration – Mr. Ramneek Goel Vs. Mr. Sunil Bajaj – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The period of CIRP cannot be extended on the flimsy grounds much beyond the period of 330 days – Dr. Palani G Periasamy Vs. CA M. Suresh Kumar Liquidator, Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that we could not find any substance in the argument of Counsel for the Appellant because the CoC had time and again extended the period which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority but two resolution plans in respect of the Corporate Debtor were rejected with the majority of the vote of 91.92% by the CoC and at that time the CoC was aware that 330 days time period in respect of the Corporate Debtor had already been over. Moreover, it has been categorically observed by the Adjudicating Authority that neither any plan was pending nor any application under Section 12A of the Code was pending for their consideration, therefore, the period of CIRP cannot be extended on the flimsy grounds much beyond the period of 330 days as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. [2019] ibclaw.in 07 SC.

The period of CIRP cannot be extended on the flimsy grounds much beyond the period of 330 days – Dr. Palani G Periasamy Vs. CA M. Suresh Kumar Liquidator, Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Summary of landmark judgment of Supreme Court in Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Acceding to request of Committee of Creditors, in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and also for the reason that the law on Section 29A has been laid down for the first time by this judgment, we give one more opportunity to both resolution applicants to pay off the NPAs of their related corporate debtors within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment, in accordance with the proviso to Section 29A(c).

Summary of landmark judgment of Supreme Court in Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Read Post »

Whether CIRP time limit 330 days is to be extended or not has to be seen comprehensively with the decision of the CoC whether any further time is to be granted – Triumph Commodities Pte. Ltd. Vs. Aster Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Liquidator Mr. Naren Sheth – NCLAT Chennai

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

Whether CIRP time limit 330 days is to be extended or not has to be seen comprehensively with the decision of the CoC whether any further time is to be granted – Triumph Commodities Pte. Ltd. Vs. Aster Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Liquidator Mr. Naren Sheth – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Whether the decision of the CoC to replace the Resolution Professional being the outcome of the wisdom of the CoC, is subject to judicial review? – Venus India Asset-Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jain, RP of MK Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that when the CoC contemplates change of Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the statutory construct has to merely look into two basic check boxes which is whether the CoC has resolved to that effect with 66% vote share and whether the proposed Resolution Professional has given his written consent and not look at anything beyond. The statutory framework of the IBC also does not mandate that the CoC is required to adduce reasons for replacing the Resolution Professional.

Whether the decision of the CoC to replace the Resolution Professional being the outcome of the wisdom of the CoC, is subject to judicial review? – Venus India Asset-Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jain, RP of MK Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top