Mr. Jatindranath Swain

Provisions of Section 14 of the limitation Act will not be attracted for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC – Hero Exports Vs. Mr. K. Vasudevan RP, Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

When under the statute, the power of review or recall is not vested with an authority created under law, the same would not be maintainable and in these eventualities the recall or a review petition cannot be treated as to be a proceeding in continuation to the principal proceeding, which was held before the NCLT, for grant of approval to the Resolution Plan. In that eventuality, where the appellant has opted to put a challenge only to the order of rejection of recall application, it would amount to that he has acceded to the order of approval of the resolution plan, and consequentially the implications of Order II Rule 2, of CPC would follow which is otherwise principally made applicable in the proceedings which are held before the NCLT or under the I & B Code.

Provisions of Section 14 of the limitation Act will not be attracted for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC – Hero Exports Vs. Mr. K. Vasudevan RP, Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

In an event of the breach of repayment by Personal Guarantor, the legal consequences would automatically follow as per the provisions contained under Section 118 of the IBC – Tummala Sri Ganesh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLAT and held that under law the repayment plan will have to be regulated in accordance with Regulations 20 of IBBI Regulations and the stipulated time frame has to be strictly adhered to and in an event of the breach of repayment, by the personal guarantor, the legal consequences would automatically follow as per the provisions contained under Section 118 of the I & B Code. As per Section 118, the plan would be deemed to have come to an end, if it has not been fully implemented. Payment of the initial instalments cannot give a leverage or an excuse to commit subsequent default in the future repayment schedule given under the repayment plan.

In an event of the breach of repayment by Personal Guarantor, the legal consequences would automatically follow as per the provisions contained under Section 118 of the IBC – Tummala Sri Ganesh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The definition of ‘Party’ under NCLT Rule 2(16) includes the words person preferring an appeal and it does not classify or subclassify the party to the proceedings | Word ‘Person Aggrieved’ used in Sec. 61 of IBC is wide enough to include within it, a party to the proceedings, as well as any other person other than the party to the proceedings – Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Vs. Kalvakolanu Murali Krishna Prasad RP for Vaksh Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) The definition of the word “party’’ under the NCLT Rules, 2016 is quite wide and it does not stipulate that a person for the purposes of being treated as to be a party, has to be actually the party to the proceedings. Rather, the term party as defined under Rule 2(16) of the NCLT Rules of 2016, is wide enough to include within itself a person who prefers an Appeal.
(ii) The definition of “Party’’, includes the word “person preferring an appeal’’, it does not classify or subclassify the party to the proceedings.
(iii) A person who is preferring an Appeal under Section 61, cannot seek an exclusion from the period of limitation to prefer an Appeal, on grounds of being a person aggrieved if, he has not been diligent enough to apply for the Certified Copy within the time period of limitation under Section 61.
(iv) The date of knowledge of the proceedings, cannot be taken as to be a foundation for fixing the date of commencement of the period of limitation for preferring an Appeal.

The definition of ‘Party’ under NCLT Rule 2(16) includes the words person preferring an appeal and it does not classify or subclassify the party to the proceedings | Word ‘Person Aggrieved’ used in Sec. 61 of IBC is wide enough to include within it, a party to the proceedings, as well as any other person other than the party to the proceedings – Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Vs. Kalvakolanu Murali Krishna Prasad RP for Vaksh Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

A party cannot invoke appellate jurisdiction under Section 61 of IBC, 2016 against main order of NCLT without giving a challenge to the order passed on IA, rejecting his intervention – M.K. Resely and Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai

Hon’ble NCLAT interprets the word `Aggrieved Person’ in section 61 of IBC that:

(i) The “Aggrieved Person’’ in the context of the terminology used under Section 61 (1) of IBC, would be a person who has not been conscious of an Impugned Order that prejudices his material right and such person could still invoke an Appellate Jurisdiction by seeking the leave of the Court.
(ii) Merely because of the fact that they were heard or they were described as Additional Respondents, before the NCLT, they will not get the status of being a party to the proceedings which will enable them to file an Appeal.
(iii) Concealment of a fact or distortion of a fact would be a sufficient ground to decline the interference, while exercising the Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016.

A party cannot invoke appellate jurisdiction under Section 61 of IBC, 2016 against main order of NCLT without giving a challenge to the order passed on IA, rejecting his intervention – M.K. Resely and Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Whether Prospective Resolution Applicant is an Aggrieved Party to file appeal under Section 61 of IBC to challenge an order of NCLT allowing Erstwhile Promoter/ Director of the Corporate Debtor to submit Resolution Plan in CIRP – Meir Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. Prospective Resolution Applicant of NCS Sugars Ltd. Vs. Mr. Narayanam Nageswara Rao and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai

Hon’ble NCLAT observes that there is no material right which is prejudiced by passing of the Impugned Order by the Adjudicating Authority, which could give him a cause to challenge the same by invoking Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, and that too, in the status of being a Prospective Resolution Applicant, where he has only expressed his interest to submit the Resolution Proposal and has not even reached the stage of submitting Resolution Proposal. The Appellant does not have any cause of action, as such, as against the Impugned Order, in the status of his being a Prospective Resolution Applicant.

Whether Prospective Resolution Applicant is an Aggrieved Party to file appeal under Section 61 of IBC to challenge an order of NCLT allowing Erstwhile Promoter/ Director of the Corporate Debtor to submit Resolution Plan in CIRP – Meir Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. Prospective Resolution Applicant of NCS Sugars Ltd. Vs. Mr. Narayanam Nageswara Rao and Ors. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top