Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The NCLAT upheld the grant of reliefs and concessions regarding shared utilities and services in Resolution Plan to facilitate the smooth and successful implementation of the Resolution Plan.
The NCLAT warned against manipulating the IBC for debt recovery purposes, as it would defeat the code’s purpose of rehabilitating Corporate Debtors.
NCLAT held that CoCs’ resolution not to consider Resolution Plans from additional new entrants rendered the NCLAT’s orders unsustainable.
NCLAT upheld appellant’s classification as a Financial Institution and it’s liability to pay Liquidation Costs.
NCLAT stated that since the IBC overrides the SARFAESI Act, the Liquidator ought not to prefer a petition, based on the SARFAESI Act, and therefore Liquidator’s decision to classify the appellant as an unsecured financial creditor was illegal and invalid.
In the instant matter, the NCLT rejected the application, noting the approval of the resolution by the Committee of Creditors and the absence of filing through an authorized representative.
The NCLAT held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC was considered paramount, and no interference was justified.
The NCLAT held that the CoC had the jurisdiction to decide on liquidation as per Section 33(2) and its explanation, even before completing all steps for resolution.
Section 12A was introduced in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, allowing the withdrawal of CIRP with the approval of 90% voting share of the CoC.
The NCLAT directed the Adjudicating Authority to hear and decide the application under Section 7 of the IBC expeditiously, treating it as not covered by Section 10A of the IBC.
“Debt acknowledgment in balance sheets and OTS proposal demonstrated Corporate Debtor’s awareness of assignment, rendering technical challenges unfounded.”
The NCLAT reiterated the importance of adhering to timelines in the Insolvency resolution process and the unacceptability of claims filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.
NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order on finding no error in rejecting the appellant’s objections to the Resolution Plan.
While affirming the impugned order, the NCLAT granted the appellant option to pursue proceedings as per the agreement between the parties before an appropriate forum in accordance with the law.
The NCLAT reiterated that Commercial wisdom of the CoC is crucial in determining the viability and feasibility of a resolution plan.
The main contention of the appellants is that the lay-off notice was not issued in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Supreme Court reiterated that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
The NCLAT rejected Resolution Professional’s reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as no fraud was found on the part of the Corporate Debtor.
A mere availability of arbitration or any other proceeding could not preclude the operational creditor from initiating proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC. The critical question would be whether the application was filed within the limitation period.
The democratic principles of the determinative role of majority opinion are enshrined in the IBC, and objections by a minority within a class, when the majority has approved a resolution plan, have no legal standing.