NCLT imposes exemplary cost of ₹ 5 Lakhs on Trimex Industries (P) Ltd for filing frivolous litigation
NCLT imposed cost to restain Trimex Industries (P) Ltd. from filing frivolous applications which consume Tribunal’s valuable resources and time.
corporate insolvency resolution process
Intent of Corporate Debtor irrelevant in establishing existence of preferential transaction: NCLAT
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
To reject application under Sec. 9 IBC, a genuine pre-existing dispute must exist: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that no pre-existing dispute regarding quality of supplied goods exist as the same was not raised before consumption of the goods.
[Reliance Capital (RCap) Resolution] CoC has power to negotiate and call for higher bid; NCLAT allows another round of bidding
The NCLAT held that even after completion of challenge mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retains its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP.
Do Third-party/shareholders have locus to challenge initiation of CIRP against Corporate Debtor? NCLAT answers
The NCLAT held that there is no law which allows a third party or shareholders to settle the claims of Financial Creditor on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, M/s McDowell Holdings Limited.
Advance paid for purchase of shares of Corporate Debtor does not fall under definition of Financial Debt: NCLT
NCLT held that the amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt as it was not disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money.
Once Resolution Plan approved and submitted to Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be sent back for re-consideration: NCLAT
In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.
Top 14 Rulings from Tribunals, Commissions, Regulatory Authorities: Shiv Sena Party Symbol Dispute, Income Tax Act, Medical Negligence and more| February 2023 Roundup
This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.
NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor
In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority’s order was not followed in its true spirit.
NCLAT stays Insolvency proceeding against Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd
The NCLAT granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) by staying bankruptcy proceedings against them, after the NCLT admitted S. 7 application and directed the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor/ZEEL.
In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? NCLAT Answers
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Debt and default are sine qua non and only condition for admitting S. 7 IBC application: NCLAT
While hearing an appeal challenging an impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing a S. 7 IBC application on the ground that the appellant was not able to establish debt and default, the Tribunal held that it is clear from the facts and circumstances the definition of debt and default is rightly established by the appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has committed a patent error while passing the impugned order.
NCLAT| A mistake in demand notice does not make an application defective unless some prejudice is suffered resulting from such mistake
While deciding the present matter dealing with mistake in demand notice, NCLAT held that “the Corporate Debtor has not and would not be prejudiced by fact that Operational Creditor has mentioned the wrong date of default due to its inadvertence.”
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Adjudicating Authority cannot direct Resolution Professional to pay lease amount during CIRP
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that Adjudicating Authority cannot direct Resolution Professional to pay lease amount under Section 14(1)(d) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during CIRP
NCLAT | IBC overrides Limitation Act; Delay beyond period of 45 days cannot be condoned
While adjudicating an appeal file with a delay of 55 days, the Tribunal held that S. 238 IBC overrides S. 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore this Tribunal does not have power to condone a delay beyond a period of 45 days.
NCLAT rejects application for initiation of CIRP for filing with fraudulent and malicious intent
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is inevitable if it is filed fraudulently and maliciously for purpose other than resolution of insolvency.
Adjudication of an avoidance application is independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and can survive CIRP: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that adjudication of an avoidance application was independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and could survive Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and a Resolution Professional would not be functus officio with respect to adjudication of avoidance application.
NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that once the CoC has decided to vote on the resolution plans after closure of challenge process, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider any revised plan submitted thereafter.
Strong reason required to keep the application in abeyance; NCLAT dismisses appeal finding no error in Adjudicating Authority’s order
The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.
Adjudicating Authority is obligated to give direction for liquidation only when CoC’s decision is in accordance with IBC: NCLAT
In the instant matter, an appeal was filed challenging NCLT's order directing the CoC to reconsider its decision. Upholding the NCLT's order, the Tribunal held that when the CoC's decision for liquidation is in accordance with IBC, then only NCLT's obligation to direct liquidation will arise.