NCLAT Judge Recuses From Case Saying He Was Approached By 'Higher Judiciary Member' To Favour A Party

The judicial member of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, recused from hearing an insolvency matter, after observing that he was approached by "one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary" seeking an order favouring a particular party. The August 13 order passed by a bench of judicial member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and technical member Jatindranath Swain states:"We are anguished to observe, that one of us, Member...

Employees Can't Be Paid Gratuity Dues In Addition To Payouts Allocated To Them In Resolution Plan: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the employees of the corporate debtor cannot be paid gratuity dues in addition to the proposed payouts allocated to them in the Resolution Plan when it is clearly provided in the Resolution Plan. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants on behalf of employees of the corporate debtor against an order by which the Resolution Plan was...

Once Assignment Of Debt Is Declared Illegal, Assignee Loses Its Rights To File Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when the assignment of debt from the bank to the applicant is found to be illegal and unauthorized, the very basis of filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC is knocked out, and such an applicant cannot be allowed to file the application on the basis of financial creditor's status. These two appeals have been filed against an order...

Mere Rescheduling Of Payment Through New Agreement Does Not Change Repayment Obligations Under Original Agreement: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that mere rescheduling of the payment date through an agreement does not alter the repayment obligations under the original Common Loan Agreement, nor does it result in novation. Therefore, an application under Section 7 of the IBC can be filed based on the original agreement. The present appeal has been filed under section 61 of the Insolvency...

Resolution Professional's Failure To Individually Inform Homebuyers About Insolvency Proceedings Goes Against Principles Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the failure of the Resolution Professional to individually inform the homebuyers about the insolvency proceedings as mandated under Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, so they could file their claims on time, goes against the spirit of the IBC and vitiates the entire proceedings especially ...

Once Claims Are Received By Investors Under Settlement Agreement, They Are Prohibited From Claiming Same Amount Under Resolution Plan: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that once an investor of the Corporate Debtor has received an amount under the Settlement Agreement and has given an unconditional undertaking to forgo all claims under the Resolution Plan, they are barred from claiming the same amount under the Resolution Plan, as such dual recovery is impermissible. The present appeal has been filed...

Once CoC Agrees To Release Personal Guarantees Upon Payment, Invocation Cannot Be Directed By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), has held that if CoC has itself agreed to release the personal guarantees upon completion of payment under the Resolution Plan, no directions can be issued to invoke such guarantees. Brief Background The appeal was filed challenging the observations made in paragraphs 28 & 39 of the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the...

Approved Resolution Plan Can't Be Set Aside Merely Due To Dissenting Financial Creditor's Dissatisfaction With Asset Valuation: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that approval of a resolution plan cannot be interfered with merely on the grievance of a single financial creditor regarding improper asset valuation of the corporate debtor, when the valuer has, in fact, duly considered all assets and submitted its report. The present two appeals have been filed against two orders passed by the National Company...

Litigants Can't Be Forced To Argue On Merits When They Did Not File Reply To RP's Report U/S 99 Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a litigant has not filed a reply to the Resolution Professional's report submitted under Section 99 of the IBC, due to sufficiently explained causes, requiring them to argue on merits would be premature and unjustified. The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi by...

[Byju's Insolvency] No Adjudicatory Power Under IBC To Reconstitute CoC Or “Provisional Constitution” Of CoC: NCLAT, Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that a Resolution Professional has no adjudicatory power under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Once the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) is constituted, the Resolution Professional cannot reconstitute the CoC on his own accord. The scope of updating claims is limited only to determination of quantum and...

Power Of Attorney Can Be Executed By Officers Nominated By Designation, Not Necessarily By Name: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice N. Seshasayee (Member – Judicial) and Arun Baroka (Member – Technical), has held that a power of attorney (POA) executed by bank officers nominated by their designation, rather than by name, is legally valid for instituting proceedings under the IBC, 2016. Background of the Case The appeal was filed against the decision of the adjudicating authority, by which it had dismissed the appellant's...

CoC Has Discretion To Allow Resolution Applicant To Submit Revised Plan If Its Name Appears In Final Resolution Applicant List: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the committee of creditors (CoC) has discretion to allow the Resolution Applicant to submit a revised plan to maximise the value of the corporate debtor's assets if the Resolution Applicant's name appears in the final RA list. The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai. By the ...