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.
“The ‘Bank Guarantee’ is a ‘contract of Guarantee’ provided/furnished by the Bank, the “surety”, to perform the ‘promise’, or ‘discharge’ the liability, of the third person, being the Corporate Debtor herein, in case of his ‘default’.”
The Adjudicating Authority erred in passing the impugned order, directing the imposition fine, overlooking the law of the land through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Limitation shall commence from the date when order is passed and shall not depend on the date when Appellant came to know of the order.
In the instant matter, the appellant claimed to be a Financial Creditor as their name was included in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor.
The Liquidator should endeavor to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern in the Liquidation Proceeding, and the appellant may participate by submitting its plan.
NCLT’s order did not contain specific findings regarding whether the entire loan amount had been paid and whether nothing remained due.
NCLAT observed that the issue raised by the appellant, while attractive, no longer had relevance after the closure of the CIRP proceedings.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies, Commissions this month.
“In application for condonation of delay in refiling of appeal, the applicant/appellant has to give sufficient reason for not re-filing the appeal within the time prescribed.”