Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Commercial wisdom of the CoC in choosing the mode and counter-party of sale of assets, whether core or non-core, encumbered or unencumbered, is non-justiciable, barring jurisdictional or regulatory violations.
The appeal challenges the NCLAT’s order upholding a purported lay-off by Resolution Professional, which the appellant claims was a disguised and unlawful retrenchment. The Court is set to examine whether IBC overrides ID Act provisions and whether such retrenchments can legally occur under the garb of lay-offs during insolvency proceedings.
The judgment reaffirmed the principle that entries in a corporate debtor’s balance sheet can constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, provided they indicate a subsisting jural relationship between the parties, even if the financial creditor is not named explicitly. The Court emphasised that such entries must be interpreted liberally and in context, considering the overall tenor of the balance sheet and the surrounding circumstances.
Reiterating that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is to be given paramount importance for approval/rejection of the Resolution Plan, the NCLT held that the Resolution Plans in the present case met the requirements of the IBC and the IBBI Regulations, and thus, had to be approved.
“Investigation has also revealed no other independent player apart from DNEG has attempted to enter the market over the last few years, which shows the enforcement of appellants model has been a significant barrier for independent players to venture into cloning and delivery of content by the appellants.”
“The impugned order is exclusively interlocutory in nature which is yet to be considered on merits and yet to be given a final shape till the conduct of the final hearing when the interim reliefs prayed for, are heard and decided by the Tribunal.”
The Resolution Plan has been approved by 83.46% voting share of the CoC, therefore, at the instance of Appellant, approval of Resolution Plan cannot be allowed to be questioned.”
“There shall be liberty to the appellant to file a fresh Section 7 application for any default on the part of the corporate debtor subsequent to 10A period.”
“There is a clear distinction between the Avoidance Applications that may be filed by the Resolution Professional in view of Section 25(2)(j), for avoidance of transactions in accordance with Chapter III of the IBC, and the applications that may be filed in respect of the fraudulent trading or wrongful trading under Section 66, which falls under Chapter VI of the IBC.”
“There is no mandatory requirement for factorising the date of uploading of the balance sheet on the MCA portal for computing the period of limitation.”
“If the Corporate Debtor operates as a manufacturing facility, then electricity may be treated as critical service by the insolvency professional and the dues for such services must be paid.”
“Any dispute even pending in the arbitration does not in any manner prohibit the financial creditor to take remedy under Section 7 IBC.”
“Legislative intent behind inserting the proviso to Section 31(4) of the IBC would suggest that prior approval of the CCI was specifically mandated and it should not be seen as a flexible provision to be ignored in certain exigencies.”
Noting that hypothecation means the process of using an asset as collateral for a loan. It acts as a protection to the lender when the borrower does not repay the loan, the Supreme Court highlighted that the name of the document is not a decisive factor. Only because the title of the document contains the word hypothecation, it cannot be concluded that guarantee is not a part of this document.
The NCLAT noted that the NCLT had not delegated its jurisdiction to the 15-member committee but tasked the committee to act under the NCLT’s oversight, ensuring compliance with its guidance and observations.
The present appeal raises substantial questions about the legal framework governing the withdrawal of a CIRP; the settlement of claims after the admission of an application instituted by a debtor; and the scope of the inherent powers vested in the NCLAT under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules.
The NCLAT held the appellant’s claim was inflated, and the Adjudicating Authority rightly recalculated the actual unpaid amount, which fell below the Rs 1 crore threshold.
Entry 31 of Schedule of Fees prescribed by the NCLT Rules stipulates that the fee for obtaining true certified copies of final orders passed to parties other than the concerned parties under Rule 50 shall be Rs 5 per page. The stipulation of Rupees five per page in Entry 31 excludes “the concerned parties under Rule 50”.
by Anupm Prakash* and Kirti Talreja**