NCLAT
Promoter Undergoing CIRP Can Be Permitted To Complete Project For Benefit Of Homebuyer: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended directors of the Supertech Township Projects Ltd stating that the resolution plan of the corporate debtor must proceed strictly as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. Brief Facts The case is regarding Supertech Township...
No Straight Jacket Formula Can Be Laid Down For Adjudication Of Application U/S 12A Of IBC & Objections Therein: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that no straight jacket formula can be laid down for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority of a 12A application and the objections filed therein. It further observed that the Adjudicating Authority has to see whether the claim has substantially been settled substantially or not. If it is...
Timely Implementation Of Resolution Plan Is The Underlying Objective Of The IBC: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India, recently dismissed the appeal filed by Darwin Platform, upholding an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, which had reinstated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The case arose from the failure of the appellant to implement the resolution plan within the stipulated timeline, leading to the...
Operational Creditors Cannot Question Approval Of Resolution Plan That Provides Them With More Than Liquidation Value: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) that Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be questioned by the Operational Creditors when they were provided more than the liquidation value under the Plan as per section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). Brief Facts: On 07.12.2022, the Corporate...
Serving Demand Notice To Personal Guarantor Under Rule 7 Of Personal Guarantors Rules Cannot Be Considered Invocation Of Guarantee: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that a Notice served to the personal guarantor under Rule 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 (“2019 Rules”) cannot be considered 'Invocation of Guarantee', therefore...
Order Approving Resolution Plan Passed Beyond 330 Days Cannot Be Questioned When Application Seeking Approval Was Filed Within CIRP Period: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when an order approving the Resolution Plan is passed by the Adjudicating Authority after expiry of 330 days but the application seeking approval was filed within the stipulated time period, it cannot be said the plan was approved after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period. Brief Facts: An application...
Interest Free Maintenance Fee Deposited By Allottees Under Conveyance Deed Cannot Be Considered As Financial Debt U/S 5(8) Of IBC: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that interest free maintenance fee to be paid by the allottees to the corporate debtor under the Conveyance Deed cannot be considered as financial debt under section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). Brief Facts: M/s. ALM Infotech City Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) launched a...
NCLT Has No Jurisdiction To Convict Person For Offence U/S 68 Of IBC In View Of Section 236 Of IBC: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has no jurisdiction to convict a person for an offence under Section 68 under Chapter VII of Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) in view of the express provision contained in Section 236(1) of the Code. Brief Facts: The present Appeals have been filed challenging two...
When Debt Is Not Unequivocally Admitted By Corporate Debtor, Application U/S 9 Of IBC Must Not Be Entertained: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be entertained when the debt is not unequivocally admitted by the Corporate Debtor. Brief Facts: The RR Metalmakers India Ltd.(Corporate Debtor) had approached Jaldhi Overseas Pvt Ltd. (Operational...
Rejection Of Resolution Plan By Suspended Director Can't Be Interfered With If No Expression Of Interest Was Submitted Despite Participation In Meetings: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the rejection of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor by Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot be interfered with when the concerned Director was present in all the meetings of the CoC and had still not submitted the plan in pursuance of Invitation to...
Limitation Period For Filing Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC Commences From Date Of Order, Not From Date Of Its Receipt: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) shall commence from the date of passing of the order and not from the date when a copy of the order is received. Brief Facts: The present application has been filed seeking...
Adjudicating Authority Is Empowered To Decide Whether Successful Resolution Applicant Is Liable To Pay Pre-CIRP Electricity Dues U/S 60(5) Of IBC: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is empowered to decide an issue whether Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) is liable to pay Pre-Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) electricity dues after the approval of the resolution plan and taking over of the corporate debtor under section 60(5)(c) of the...