Proceedings U/S 37 A Of FEMA Can't Be Continued During Moratorium U/S 33(5) Of IBC: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Jay Sengupta has held that once a liquidation order against the Corporate Debtor is passed, all proceedings including those pending at the time of such order under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) cannot be continued, nor can any new proceedings be initiated, in view of the bar under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This is further reinforced by the non obstante clause under Section 238 of the Code,...

Delhi High Court Reduces Suspension Period Imposed By IBBI Disciplinary Committee On Insolvency Professional, Finds Penalty Disproportionate

The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela have reduced the suspension period imposed on the Appellant/Resolution Professional, noting that the Disciplinary Committee of IBBI overlooked material aspects and relied on incorrect data while imposing the penalty. It reduced the suspension to the period already undergone. Brief Facts The NCLT admitted an application under Section 9 of the IBC against GTHS Retails Pvt. Ltd. on...

Application U/S 94 Of IBC Cannot Be Entertained Against Sole Proprietorship Firms: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Prem Narayan Singh has held that since sole proprietorship firms are not included in the definition of the corporate person under section 3(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), an application under section 94 of the Code cannot be entertained. Brief Facts: The petitioner is an owner of the property situated at House No.437-B, Katju Nagar, Ratlam, M.P. The aforesaid property was mortgaged as a...

Notice U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act Cannot Be Issued By Authority After Approval Of Resolution Plan U/S 31 Of IBC: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N.Ray has held that after approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), all liabilities prior to the approval of the plan stand extinguished. Therefore, the Income Tax Authority cannot be permitted to issue a notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) seeking to revise the assessment after the approval of the Plan. Brief Facts: Amw Auto...

Moratorium Period Under IBC Does Not Bar Payment Of Compensation Under NI Act: J&K High Court Orders ₹4 Crore Interim Compensation

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the declaration of a moratorium would not bar the complainant from filing a complaint under the NI Act. The court said that the debtor cannot take refuge under the Code to frustrate proceedings under the NI Act if he is found liable to pay compensation in the proceedings.Justice Puneet Gupta held that Section 14 of the IBC, which places a moratorium on the institution of suits or the continuation of pending suits, does not include criminal proceedings,...

[Noida Sports City Scam] Allahabad HC Lays Down Guidelines Regarding Rights Of Other Members Of Consortium When One Member Goes Into Insolvency

While directing CBI inquiry against officials of New Okhla Development Authority and various allottes/ builder involved in development of the Sporty City project in Noida, the Allahabad High Court laid down guidelines regarding the rights of other members of consortium, when one member goes into insolvency as the same is not provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.Holding that the IBC is not indented to hamper projects of national importance, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra...

Banks Can Initiate Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act To Recover Loan If It Wasn't Party To Resolution Plan: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Gopinath P. has held that a bank can initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover outstanding dues if it was not a party to the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court clarified that the bar against claims outside a resolution plan does not extend to third parties merely associated with the...

Gratuity Dues Of Workers Do Not Form Part Of 'Liquidation Estate' Of Corporate Debtor, Must Be Paid In Full: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that gratuity dues are statutorily protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and do not form part of the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The court held that gratuity payments are outside the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC and must be paid in full, irrespective of the resolution plan. It further observed that Section 14 of the Payment of...

Corporate Debtor Immune From Prosecution Under PMLA Post Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that in accordance with Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Corporate Debtor that has successfully undergone a resolution process under Section 31 of the IBC shall not be prosecuted for offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP. Brief Facts On 26.07.2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) initiated corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against...

Proviso To S.10A Of IBC Doesn't Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period. The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for...

Moratorium U/S 14 Of IBC Doesn't Exempt Promoter From Complying With Mandatory Pre-Deposit Required U/S 43(5) Of RERA: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not exempt a promoter from complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). It was observed that the moratorium applied only to the particular project under insolvency proceedings and not to other...

Directors Cannot Be Held Liable For Dishonour Of Cheques After Commencement Of CIRP Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has reiterated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishnonour of cheque cannot continue against individuals once a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is in effect. Brief Facts The petitions seek to quash the summoning order dated 01.04.2022 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, in CC No. 9170/2020, filed under Section...