Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has advised and represented Nazara Technologies Limited
The petitioner submitted that since Resolution Plan under the Reserve Bank of India’s Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets, 2019 have already been implemented, therefore, the Bank of India ought not to have proceeded against the petitioner.
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 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.”
‘On the complete extinguishment of all tax liabilities of the Corporate Debtor upon the approval of the Resolution Plan, there could be no occasion whatsoever for the IT Commissioner to issue the impugned notice under Section 263 of the Act, seeking to revise the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2020-21.’
by Sidharth Sethi*, Shreya Sircar** and Kunal Saini***
“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.”
“Decision taken by the CoC for liquidation in commercial wisdom of the CoC should not be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority.”
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 NCLT held that non-delivery of possession despite payments and continued acknowledgment of liability through emails and communications proved default under Section 7 IBC.
The claims pertaining to the transfer fees, etc., cannot be dealt with by courts or tribunals as the same relates to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors for they are the best persons to determine their interests, and any such interference is non-justiciable except as provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016.
NCLT held that the Resolution Professional followed the principles of Natural Justice and considered relevant documents, therefore, the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process should be initiated.
About 538 home buyers, who paid more than 80% of the demand, will be given this option for allotment of the flat, in which event, the said home buyers will be treated on par with other home buyers.
The NCLT stated that the petitioner neither had a direct contractual relationship with the respondent, nor was the respondent provided with any goods/services, thereby disqualifying them as an operational creditor.
by Yogendra Aldak†, Pranav Mundra†† and Balraaj Singh Chhatwal†††
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.
NCLAT held that CoCs’ resolution not to consider Resolution Plans from additional new entrants rendered the NCLAT’s orders unsustainable.
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 dues shown payable to the appellant was Rs. 13,47,40,819 while the appellant claimed it to be Rs. 43,40,31,951.