Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The NCLAT held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC was considered paramount, and no interference was justified.
Supreme Court observed that the law laid in Digambar Anandrao Pingle (supra) by NCLAT was not correct, and that the date of submission of resolution plan has to be the cut off date.
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.
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.
“The respondent, having failed to lodge its claim, cannot enforce the impugned orders and notices, given the binding nature of the approved Resolution Plan.”
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 IBC and the resolution process does not contemplate matters being left inchoate. In fact, it exhorts one to accept the seal of finality and quietude which stands attached to the approval of a Resolution Plan.”
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.
Calcutta High Court observed that the argument advanced by the applicants leave an impression that “a desperate attempt is made to have the order reviewed in the garb of recall”.
The principle of equality is applicable only in same class of creditors, i.e., secured or unsecured, financial or operational.