Obtaining Prior NOC From Stock Exchanges/SEBI Not Mandatory Before Submitting Scheme Of Arrangement For Company In Liquidation: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), observed that it is not mandatory to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) before submitting a scheme of arrangement to revive a company in liquidation under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under section 230 of the Companies Act. The NCLAT held that it is...

Limitation U/S 61 Of IBC Is To Be Calculated From Date Of E-Filing, Rules Prevalent When Application Is Considered To Be Applied: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), held that the period of limitation for appeal should be counted from the date of e-filing and not from the physical presentation. The tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal as sufficient cause was shown and it was in accordance with the Standard...

NCLAT Chennai Upholds Creditors Right To File For Bankruptcy Beyond Threshold Timeline U/S 118 Of IBC

Recently, the NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeals filed by Tummala Sri Ganesh and other applicants. In this case, the issue was with respect to applicants who had furnished personal guarantees for the debt liabilities of Chadalvada Infratech Limited. The principal borrower had defaulted on the repayment of debt and CIRP was invoked in pursuance to which NCLT approved a repayment plan. However, the appellants, without completing the repayment process, made the RP file a report under Section 118 of...

Assignee Stepping Into Shoes Of Assignor, Borrower Or Guarantor Cannot Challenge Such Assignment: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), held that personal guarantee can be invoked even if a put option has not been exercised. The Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by Paresh Parekh and Manish Patel (personal guarantors) against an order passed by the NCLT in which insolvency proceedings under section 95 of the Insolvency...

Resolution Applicants Can't Revise Offers Post Approval, CoC's 'Commercial Wisdom' Can't Be Faulted: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has observed that the 'commercial wisdom' of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which did not approve a Resolution Plan, which had given the highest money, cannot be questioned. The Tribunal went on to observe that after approval of the Resolution Plan, no Resolution Applicant is entitled to...

Adjudicating Authority Can Extend Time Limit Of PPIRP Beyond 120 Days: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that expiration of 120 days does not lead to automatic termination of Pre Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) if sufficient cause is shown. In this case, PPIRP of the corporate debtor was initiated by M/s. Kethos Tiles Pvt. Ltd., an MSME, under section 54C of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and...

Operational Creditor's Failure To Comply With S.69(2) Of Indian Partnership Act Leads To Rejection Of CIRP Petition: NCLT Hyderabad

NCLT Hyderabad in its judgement of Amogh Industrial Products Vs. Mirchi Developers Pvt. Ltd dismissed a Section 9 application filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Amogh Industrial Products (Operational Creditors) praying to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Mirchi Developers Pvt ltd, due to the failure in compliance with Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Facts of the Case The application of Section 9 under the Insolvency and...

NCLT Hyderabad Declares Stock Brokers As Financial Service Provider, Petition Under Section 9 Not Maintainable

The National Company Law Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, comprising Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member) dismissed insolvency petition filed against Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. (Corporate Debtor/Respondent) by Kapston Facilities Management Ltd. (Operational Creditor) under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The NCLT held that the respondent is a financial service provider against whom no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can...

Moratorium Can't Be AShield To Defeat Legitimate Claims Of The Creditors: NCLT Chandigarh

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench, comprising Shri Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Shri Ashish Kumar Verma (Technical Member), admitted an insolvency petition under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Ms. Mohita Indrayan, a personal guarantor, for the debts of M/s Indian Clothing League Private Limited (corporate debtor). This petition was filed by Punjab National Bank along with Indian bank (banks). The NCLT observed that ...

Co-Borrower Shares Similar And Equal Responsibility Under Loan Agreement: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) in an important judgment observed that initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a co-borrower is allowed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). In the present case, an appeal was filed by a suspended director of Narang Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NDPL)...

Ruchi Soya (Patanjali) – Claim Not Included In Approved Resolution Plan Stand Extinguished : Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court division bench comprising Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit and Mr. Justice C.M. Poonacha has held that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), claims which are not included in the resolution plan are extinguished, and no further proceedings can be initiated against the corporate debtor in respect of such claims. The Court also clarified that Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and...

Petition Under Section 95 Not Maintainable Against Partnership Firms: NCLT Hyderabad

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad in an important judgment clarified that partnership firms do not fall under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The tribunal dismissed a petition filed by Union Bank of India (Financial Creditor) under section 95 of the IBC against KMR Enterprises (Respondent). Brief Facts The case emerged from a petition filed by the financial creditor under section 95 of the IBC against the respondent, a partnership firm. The ...