Justice Mr. Jarat Kumar Jain

Whether any difference is made in the Code with regard to statutory dues and other claims (Operational Creditors) pursuant to a contract? (any prior approval for extinguishing statutory dues is required) – Government of India Vs. Ashish Chhawchharia, RP – NCLAT New Delhi

The following issues felt for consideration in deciding the Appeal.

i) Whether the Appellant falls under the category of Operational Creditor or not?

ii) Whether any difference is made in the Code with regard to statutory dues and other claims (Operational Creditors) pursuant to a contract? (any prior approval for extinguishing statutory dues is required)

iii) Whether wisdom of the COC can be interfered with?

iv) Whether the COC has complied with the rules and regulations of the Code?

Whether any difference is made in the Code with regard to statutory dues and other claims (Operational Creditors) pursuant to a contract? (any prior approval for extinguishing statutory dues is required) – Government of India Vs. Ashish Chhawchharia, RP – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 29A(a) of IBC which referred to as ‘is an undischarged insolvent’ is applicable to individuals and partnership firms – Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Section 29A(a) of IBC which referred to as ‘is an undischarged insolvent’ is applicable to individuals and partnership firms – Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Exclusion of claim of more than 251 i.e. about 53% of total homebuyers/allottees cannot lead to a fair and just resolution of the Corporate Debtor – Amit Goel Vs. Piyush Shelters India Pvt. Ltd. Through RP Shri Swami Deen Gupta – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Exclusion of claim of more than 251 i.e. about 53% of total homebuyers/allottees cannot lead to a fair and just resolution of the Corporate Debtor – Amit Goel Vs. Piyush Shelters India Pvt. Ltd. Through RP Shri Swami Deen Gupta – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can an asset be kept out of liquidation estate/going concern sale if the said asset is sub-judice before the High Court? – Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Sumit Binani, as Liquidator of Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this appeal, following issues arose for consideration:

(i) Whether the title of windmill asset has passed to Appellants is sub-judice before the Calcutta High Court?

(ii) Whether the order for keeping the windmill asset out of the liquidation estate is beyond the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority?

(iii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing an order for allowing the liquidator to implead in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2019 pending before the Calcutta High Court?

(iv) Whether the order of corrigendum dated 23.03.2021 is without jurisdiction?

Can an asset be kept out of liquidation estate/going concern sale if the said asset is sub-judice before the High Court? – Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Sumit Binani, as Liquidator of Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor is to be done as a going concern, an additional 90 days is allowed beyond one year for completion of liquidation process – BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Lal Jain, Liquidator – NCLAT New Delhi

Regulation 47 of the Liquidation Regulations provides “Model time- line for liquidation process”. According to this regulation, from the date of commencement of liquidation and appointment of liquidator under sections 33 and 34 of IBC the time provided for completion of liquidation process is 365 days. Further, sub-regulation (1) under Regulation 44. Thus if the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor is to be done as a going concern, an additional 90 days is allowed beyond one year for completion of liquidation process.

If the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor is to be done as a going concern, an additional 90 days is allowed beyond one year for completion of liquidation process – BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Lal Jain, Liquidator – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The date of default can be considered as recorded in the certificate of Information Utility services instead of date of NPA – Shri M. K. Dhir Vs. Punjab National Bank – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT holds that it is a settled law that default is committed first and second stage comes as NPA, if it is not regularized in between the period of default and within 90 days thereafter. From the Section 3(11), 3(12), 5(7), 5(8) and Section 7 of the Code, it is very much clear that Code is a complete Act itself. What Section 7 of the Code requires that a Financial Creditor by filing an application in the requisite format can initiate CIRP against the CD when a Debt is due and payable in law and has not been paid and a default has occurred, the Adjudicating Authority is to initiate CIRP if, he finds default recorded in the Information Utility or evidence of default. So, the criteria for initiation of the CIRP under the Code is limited to three things, (i) there is a debt due and payable in law and has not been paid (ii)Default has occurred (iii) Default is recorded with the Information Utility. Here all the three criteria’s are met and hence initiation of CIRP by the Adjudicating Authority is in order. As far as issue of limitation is concerned the default has been committed on 03.09.2016 and the Application has been filed on 12.03.2019 hence, it is within a period of 3 years as required under Section 238A of the Code R/w 137 of the Limitation Act.

The date of default can be considered as recorded in the certificate of Information Utility services instead of date of NPA – Shri M. K. Dhir Vs. Punjab National Bank – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the distribution of funds from working capital and profit to the stakeholders until assets have been liquidated, and till the liquidator realizes the complete liquidation value is in conformity with the provisions of the Code and Regulations – Varrsana Ispat Ltd. (through Mr. Anil Goel, Liquidator) Vs. Varrsana Employee Welfare Association – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Whether the distribution of funds from working capital and profit to the stakeholders until assets have been liquidated, and till the liquidator realizes the complete liquidation value is in conformity with the provisions of the Code and Regulations – Varrsana Ispat Ltd. (through Mr. Anil Goel, Liquidator) Vs. Varrsana Employee Welfare Association – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The provisions of Code cannot be allowed as a recovery mechanism or to recover the claim of interest by Operational Creditor – M/s Amsons Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT affirms the decision of the AA and holds that the claim of interest being disputed, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the Application under Section 9 of the Code. The provisions of Code cannot be allowed as a recovery mechanism or to recover the claim of interest by Operational Creditor. The Application under Section 9 cannot be converted into proceedings for recovery of interest by Operational Creditor on delayed payment, that is not the object of IBC. The object of the IBC is to resolve the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor and to bring back the Corporate Debtor on its feet. The present is not a case where there is any insolvency resolution of Corporate Debtor.

The provisions of Code cannot be allowed as a recovery mechanism or to recover the claim of interest by Operational Creditor – M/s Amsons Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top