Liquidation Order U/S 33 Of IBC Cannot Be Set Aside When Third Party Has Taken Possession Of Property After Sale Conducted By Liquidator: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that the order passed under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), directing the liquidation of the corporate debtor, cannot be set aside once the Successful Auction Purchaser has taken possession of the corporate debtor's property pursuant to the sale conducted by the liquidator. Brief Facts: ...

Committee Of Creditors Not Prohibited From Seeking Multiple Modifications Or Revisions Of Resolution Plans: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is empowered to seek revisions or modifications in the Resolution Plans submitted by the Resolution Applicants multiple times, as Regulation 39(1A) of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), restricts only the...

Decree Obtained By Operational Creditors From Civil Court Does Not Mean They Cease To Be Operational Creditors: 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 an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the Operational Creditor, having obtained a decree for the debt, ceases to be an Operational Creditor. It further held that just because a decree has been obtained by the Operational Creditor does ...

Recall Application Filed By Shareholder Cannot Be Entertained When Director Who Pursued Earlier Proceedings Had Resigned: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that an application filed by a shareholder cannot be entertained when the Suspended Director, who pursued the proceedings leading to the order sought to be recalled, has resigned. A shareholder cannot substitute the Director due to their distinct legal status. Brief Facts: This appeal has been filed seeking recall ...

Consent Terms Can Only Be Legally Enforced If Ratified By Court: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal filed against an order passed by the NCLT, Jaipur. The bench held that once the entire debt had been liquidated by the corporate debtor, the corporate debtor could not be put into insolvency. The tribunal ruled consent terms can only be legally enforced if ratified by the...

Google Abused Dominant Position Through Restrictive App Store Billing Policy But Didn't Deny Market Access: NCLAT Reduces Penalty From ₹936 Cr To ₹216 Cr

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has partially upheld the decision of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that Google leveraged its dominance in the Play Store ecosystem to promote Google Play which violates section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Tribunal however held that there was no violation of section 4(2)(c) as conduct of Google did not deny market...

Adding Inflated Interest To Outstanding Liability Merely To Cross Threshold U/S 4 Of IBC Is Not Permissible: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the interest cannot be added to the outstanding liability when there is no contract between the parties to this effect and no past practice justifying such action merely to cross the threshold of Rs. 1 crore under section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). Brief Facts: ...

When There Is No Privity Of Contract Between Operational Creditor And Corporate Debtor, Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), cannot be admitted when there is no privity of contract between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. When the invoices were raised on the sister concern of the Corporate Debtor rather than on the ...

Fresh Period Of Limitation U/S 18 Of Limitation Act Begins From Date When Balance Sheet Is Signed By Corporate Debtor: 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 a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) for the purpose of filing an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) begins from the date the balance sheet is signed by the authorized signatories of the corporate debtor, not from the date it is uploaded...

Order Passed After Considering All Materials Essential For Determining Issue Cannot Be Recalled: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority after considering all necessary materials essential for determining the issue cannot be recalled. Therefore, it cannot be said that such an order was obtained by playing fraud on the court on which ground only an order can be recalled. Brief...

When Corporate Debtor's One Time Settlement Proposal Is Rejected By Financial Creditor, Application U/S 7 Of IBC Must Be Admitted: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the corporate debtor is rejected by the financial creditor and the debt remains unpaid, the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code), must be admitted. Brief Facts: The corporate debtor was constituted a Special Purpose...

Lease Hold Rights Existing In Favor Of Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Terminated During Moratorium Period U/S 14 Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an order terminating the lease cannot be passed during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), particularly when leasehold rights are assets of the corporate debtor which were in its possession. Brief Facts: The Corporate Insolvency...