Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
While deciding the present matter dealing with mistake in demand notice, NCLT 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.
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.
In instant matter, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the NCLT order approving the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The NCLAT held that once Resolution plan is approved by CoC, it cannot direct modifications of claims to Resolution Plan as the Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction.
In the present case, a Liquidator filed an application before for release/refund of unlawful payment by the applicant. The Tribunal, partly allowing the appeal, upheld the refund of the amount of Rs.25,46,588/- and of the amount of Rs.1,08,797/- as no application for refund was filed for the said amount.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member)
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | The bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Naresh Salecha* (Technical Member) held that
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | A bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J., Dr. Alok Srivastava* (Technical Member) and Barun
While exercising the power conferred by Section 11 of the Act, the Court ceases to be a Court of Record and the review or reopening of proceedings which is sought is not with respect to any power exercised by the Court under Section 11 on merits but on account of the evident factual mistake in that order.