Time Spent In Obtaining Legal Opinion And Engaging Counsel Is Not ‘Sufficient Cause’ For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the time spent in obtaining legal opinion and engagement of counsel is not a ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay in filing of appeal under proviso to Section 61(2) of IBC.The Bench was adjudicating an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal wherein the Appellant had filed the appeal on exactly...

NCLT Delhi: Criteria For Determination Of Limitation Period And Date Of Default With Respect To Debt Are Distinct Questions Of Law And Fact And Cannot Be Evaluated Similarly

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Delhi Bench, comprising of Mr. Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member) has rejected an application and held that as per Sec 10A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), no IBC proceedings can be initiated against the Corporate Debtor for the default which has occurred between the period from 25/03/2020 till 24/03/2021. The Bench further observed that the criteria for...

NCLAT Delhi: Claims Cannot Be Entertained After Approval Of Resolution Plan By CoC Even If Resolution Plan Is Still Pending For Approval By NCLT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) has rejected an appeal and held that claims cannot be entertained after approval of the Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) even if the Resolution Plan is still pending for approval of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).Background Facts On 31.12.2019, Corporate Insolvency Resolution...

NCLT Mumbai: 10-Day Demand Notice Period Cannot Be Excluded When Calculating The Limitation Period For Filing A Petition U/S 9 IBC.

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Mr Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Mr Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has dismissed a petition and held that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has no provision that a 10-day period of Demand Notice is liable to be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation for filing the petition under Section 9 of IBC.Background FactsGammon India Limited (“Respondent/Corporate Debtor”) is...

IBBI Proposes Real Estate Related Changes In CIRP & Liquidation Regulations, Invites Public Comments Till 28th November 2023

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) on 06.11.2023 has published a Discussion Paper on Real-Estate related proposals to be introduced in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) & Liquidation process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Accordingly, amendments have been proposed to IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Process) Regulations, 2016 and IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.The IBBI has also invited comments from the...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 30th October To 5th November 2023

Supreme CourtIBC Resolution Plan Can't Ignore Government Dues: Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Against 'Rainbow Papers' Case title: Sanjay Agarwal v. State Tax Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939 The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of review petitions filed against a 2022 judgment which held that the definition of a secured creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) 2016 included any government or governmental authority and that a resolution...

Operational Creditor Can’t Object To Approval Of Resolution Plan Before NCLT: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice V.G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has held that an Operational Creditor whose claim has been admitted by the Resolution Professional, cannot be made a respondent in application for approval of resolution plan pending before the NCLT. Further, the Operational Creditor cannot be allowed to object to the approval of resolution plan. The Bench has imposed a cost of Rs....

NCLT Delhi: Section 9 Application Can’t Be Allowed If Corporate Debtor Is Inactive, Due To Default In Filing Statutory Returns

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has dismissed an application and held that any application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) cannot be allowed if the Corporate Debtor is inactive, due to default in filing of statutory return for the last two years as per the...

NCLAT Delhi: An Operational Creditor Who Is A Participant In Meetings Of CoC Has No Right To Seek A Copy Of Information Memorandum.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has allowed an appeal and set aside an order of National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) observing that the operational creditor who is a participant in meetings of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) has no right to seek a copy of the Information Memorandum. Background Facts On 18.10.2022, NCLT admitted an application ...

IBBI Proposes Changes To CIRP Regulations, Invites Public Comments Till 22nd November 2023

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) on 01.11.2023 has published a Discussion Paper on amendments to IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Process) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”). The IBBI has also invited comments from the public/stakeholders regarding proposed changes to the CIRP Regulations. The comments can be submitted online at www.ibbi.gov.in till 22.11.2023. PROPOSED CHANGES Approval of Committee of Creditors (CoC) for insolvency...

IBC | Tax & Customs Dues To Be Paid As Per Waterfall Mechanism Under Section 53 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, has clarified that the dues of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Department of Revenue, will be paid as per the waterfall mechanism given under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).Section 53 of IBC provides the order of priority in which proceeds from sale of liquidation assets is to be distributed amongst Corporate Debtor’s creditors, stakeholders etc. The insolvency...

Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: October 2023

Supreme Court Homebuyers Who Secure RERA Decrees Can't Be Treated Differently From Other Financial Creditors Under IBC: Supreme Court The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, has held that homebuyers cannot be treated differently from other "financial creditors" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 just because they have secured orders from the authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. The bench set...