Breach Of Settlement Agreement Does Not Preclude Financial Creditors From Filing Application U/S 7 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 financial creditors are not precluded from filing an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), merely because they have entered into a settlement agreement with the corporate debtor that was subsequently breached. The nature of the debt remains unchanged,...

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Accept Report Of Resolution Professional Mechanically, Must Conduct Independent Assessment U/S 100 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 the Adjudicating Authority, while considering the report of the Resolution Professional submitted under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), must conduct its own independent assessment to determine whether all essential issues required for accepting or rejecting the...

All Assets Reflected In Balance Sheet Of Corporate Debtor Form Part Of Liquidation Estate U/S 36 Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that all assets reflected in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor form part of the liquidation estate under Section 36 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot be distributed to creditors outside the framework prescribed under Sections 52 and 53 of the Code. If any asset of the Corporate Debtor has been...

Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC Is Maintainable Against Order Passed By NCLT Initiating Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantors: 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 appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) can be filed by personal guarantors against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 100 of the Code, directing the initiation of the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP), as the National...

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Suo Moto Amend Date Of Default In Insolvency Application Unless Amendment Application Is Filed: 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 Adjudicating Authority cannot suo moto amend the date of default mentioned in the insolvency application unless an amendment application is filed; otherwise, it would tantamount to exceeding its jurisdiction, which is not permissible in law. Brief Facts: A petition under section 9...

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: ...