Justice Bansi Lal Bhat

As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr., the application under Section 7 of the IBC should have been decided within 14 days – Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd. Vs. Ozone Propex Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The grievance of the Appellant is that the Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the ‘I&B Code’) is pending for one year since January 2019. NCLAT held that in the circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, direct the Adjudicating Authority to decide the Application under Section 7 of the I&B Code in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr. [2017] ibclaw.in 02 SC”. In absence of any stay order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and as per the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code should have been decided within 14 days. The Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.

As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr., the application under Section 7 of the IBC should have been decided within 14 days – Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd. Vs. Ozone Propex Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If the Resolution Plan contemplates a change in the nature of business of Corporate Debtor to another line when the existing business is obsolete or non-viable, it cannot be construed that the Resolution Plan is not feasible or viable – Next Orbit Ventures Fund Vs. Print House (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that merely because the Resolution Plan does not stick to the core printing business, in its truest sense, it cannot be said that the approved Resolution Plan lacks the right vision and proposition specially in the light of the converging market forces and refocused business models. Further, it has been agreed by the Resolution Applicant that the new management will upgrade the skills of the workmen and employees for this business cycle. In Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited [2018] ibclaw.in 31 SC it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that `if there is a `Resolution Applicant’ who can continue to run the Corporate Debtor as a going concern every effort must be made to try and see if this is possible’. Going concern does not mean that the nature of the business cannot be changed with an objective to add value or create synergy. If it is viewed in this perspective, it would be interpreting the word `going concern’ in a very narrow compass which is not the scope and objective of the Code.

If the Resolution Plan contemplates a change in the nature of business of Corporate Debtor to another line when the existing business is obsolete or non-viable, it cannot be construed that the Resolution Plan is not feasible or viable – Next Orbit Ventures Fund Vs. Print House (India) Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top