Metal’s & Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Goms Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Threshold limit under Section 4 of the IBC is applicable on the date of application and not on the date on which the Debt became due
Case Citation: (2022) ibclaw.in 196 NCLAT
NCLAT holds that a mere running of the eye of the ingredients of Section 9 of the Code makes it lucidly clear that the date of initiation of CIRP shall be on the date on which an application is made. To put it precisely, the date of default is not to come into operative play and the same ought not to be taken into account for anything but computing the period of limitation. In this connection, it is to be relevantly pointed out that a litigant has no vested right to choose a particular Forum, although he has an actionable right. It cannot be gain said that a change in Law is a procedural one and a Litigant is to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Law, without any deviation whatsoever, in the considered of this Tribunal.
Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Company Law Tribunal
No application can be filed after 24.03.2020 regarding an amount where the default is less than Rs.1 Crore
Case Citation: (2022) ibclaw.in 28 HC
In the present case, a notice as required under Section 8 had been issued prior to the coming into force of Notification Dated 24.03.2020 and an application under Section 9 was filed on 25.09.2020 i.e. after notification under Section 4 of the IBC. The question that arise for decision that whether the application which relates to a defaulted amount less than Rs.1 crore can be filed after 24.3.2020, on which date notification S.O. 1205(E) dated 24.03.2020 to Section 4 was introduced? Hon’ble High Court holds that the minimum amount of default is statutorily fixed, with power available to the Government to re-fix, upto a sum of Rs.1 Crore. Once the Government has exercised the said power by issuance of a notification fixing the minimum amount of default as Rs.1 Crore, the Section will have to be read by replacing the words “one lakh rupees” by “rupees one crore”. Once that is the position, the application of Part II itself is taken away with effect from 24.03.2020 as far as defaults less than Rs.1 Crore are concerned and hence no application can be filed after 24.03.2020 regarding an amount where the default is less than Rs.1 Crore.
Jumbo Paper Products Vs. Hansraj Agrofresh Pvt. Ltd.
Threshold limit of Rs. 1 cr. will be applicable for application filed u/s 7 or 9 on or after 24.3.3020 even if default is of a date earlier than 24.3.2020 – Jumbo Paper Products Vs. Hansraj Agrofresh Pvt. Ltd.
Case Citation: (2021) ibclaw.in 497 NCLAT
NCLAT upheld decision of the AA where AA had dismissed the CIRP application filed u/s 9 on the basis of notification S.O 1205(E) dated 24.3.2020. NCLAT held that it is seen that notification dated 24.3.2020 makes it unambiguously clear that the threshold limit to be considered for section 9 application will be Rs. 1 crore. This threshold limit will be applicable for application filed u/s 7 or 9 on or after 24.3.3020 even if debt is of a date earlier than 24.3.2020. Since the application under section 9 which is the subject matter of this appeal was filed on 13.9.2020, therefore the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore of debt will be applicable in the present case.
BLS Polymers Ltd. Vs. M/s RMS Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Once the default has occurred prior to the issuance of Notification dated 24.03.2020 and Demand Notice was also sent/delivered prior to that Notification, the enhancement of the threshold limit from 1 lakh to 1 crore rupees is not applicable
Case Citation: (2021) ibclaw.in 407 NCLT
NCLT has held that once the default has occurred prior to the issuance of notification dated 24.03.2020 and demand notice was also sent/ delivered prior to that notification, the enhancement of the threshold limit from one lakh to one crore rupees is not applicable in such matters. It also held that even in the matter, in which the default has occurred prior to the issuance of said notification dated 24.03.2020 and no demand notice (as in the case of Section 9) was delivered prior to that notification, in that case too, the said notification is not applicable. rather, the minimum threshold in that case, as per Section 4 of IBC, 2016, is one lakh rupees and not one crore rupees. The notification is applicable only in respect of the default which has occurred on or after 24.03.2020 and not prior to that.
Madhusudan Tantia Vs. Amit Choraria
MCA Notification dated 24.03.2020 is prospective in nature & will not apply to the pending applications filed before the NCLT (waiting for admission), prior to the issuance of the notification
Case Citation: (2020) ibclaw.in 294 NCLAT
NCLAT held that the notification dated 24.03.2020 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, is prospective in nature and it is not retrospective or retroactive in nature. Further, the said notification will not apply to the pending applications filed before the concerned ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (Authorities), under IBC (waiting for admission), prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification, as opined by this Tribunal. Viewed in the above prospectives, the conclusion arrived at by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ in the impugned order to the effect that the notification dated 24.03.2020 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, shall be considered as prospective and not retrospective and the finding that there was no payment on the side of ‘Corporate Debtor’ after receipt of Demand Notice, no pre-existing dispute also alleged or proved and ultimately admitting the application filed by the 2nd Respondent / Operational Creditor are free from legal infirmities. Resultantly, the instant Appeal fails.
M/s Arrowline Organic Products Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Rockwell Industries Ltd.
The Limit under Sec. 4 of IBC, can be considered only as prospective, (i.e.) applicable from 24.03.2020, applicable on the date when the main Company Petition was filed, proceeded with and when the matter was finally heard and reserved, not on the date of order
Case Citation: [2020] ibclaw.in 18 NCLT
NCLT held that the Notification issued by the Central Government through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated 24.03.2020 bearing S.0 1205(E), in view of the detailed discussions in relation to the issue of its Applicability, can be considered only as prospective, (i.e.) applicable from 24.03.2020. The law which was prevalent on the date when the main CP in IBA/ 1031/2019 was filed, proceeded with and when the matter was finally heard and reserved thereafter on 04.03.2020, is required to be disposed of by this Tribunal considering only the pecuniary limits of Rs.1 Lakh for maintaining a Petition under Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 by an Operational Creditor, and in the circumstances, this Tribunal at the time of pronouncement hence was not lacking in pecuniary jurisdiction. This Application hence stands dismissed, however without costs.
Join WhatsApp Group for regular updates, Click here