IBBI’s Update to CIRP Regulations: Revisions and Reflections
by Prakul Thadi* and Sarthika Singhal**
Resolution Professional
Supreme Court | NCLT can recall Resolution Plan approval despite misclassification of Creditor’s claim under IBC on submission of proof
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.
Explained| Supreme Court verdict upholding constitutional validity of provisions relating to Personal Guarantors in IBC
“The principle aims of IBC are to promote investment, and resolution of insolvencies of corporate persons, firms, and individuals in a time bound manner. The IBC consolidated and amended a web of laws which had led to an ineffective and inefficient mechanism for resolution of insolvencies marked with significant delay”
NCLAT issues notice in appeal against NCLT’s rejection of challenge to Lay-Off notice under Industrial Disputes Act
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.
In project wise insolvency, IRP/RP cannot seek unpaid Fees/Costs from members of CoCs of another project of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT
The NCLAT held that the appellant has no Locus Standi to make claim for any unpaid Fees/Costs from the members of the CoCs, as he is neither the RP in the project nor is connected with another project.
Can Resolution Professional keep claims in abeyance during pendency of Corporate Debtor’s counter claim before arbitrator? NCLAT Answers
While dismissing the present appeal, the NCLAT held that appellant’s prayer pertaining to admission of the claim cannot be acceded to in the ‘eye of Law’.
Go Airlines insolvency: NCLAT approves appointment of new Resolution Professional by CoC
NCLAT directed the new Resolution Professional to protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor as required under S. 25(1) of the IBC
Intent of Corporate Debtor irrelevant in establishing existence of preferential transaction: NCLAT
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
What is the rule for settlement after constitution of ‘Committee of Creditors’? NCLAT Answers
“Any settlement after passing of the impugned order and after constitution of the CoC is only permissible when the same is approved with 90% vote share of CoC.”
Approaching police without resorting to special procedure under IB Code to arm twist the Resolution Professional is inappropriate: Madras High Court
Madras High Court said that there is no reason why the complaint was not filed either before IBBI or NCLT for the alleged fraud.
Resolution Professional under IBC is a ‘public servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act: Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court clarified that Section 233 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC Code’) gives protection to a resolution professional from criminal prosecution for acts in good faith, and not where he has been apprehended red-handed with the bribe amount.
“Law will take its own course”; NCLAT refuses to interfere with NCLT’s order approving Resolution Plan
NCLAT held that that the allocation of meagre amount in Resolution Plan to Creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value but same is not the case in instant matter.
NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 15 days in appeal due to lack of jurisdiction even if fraud has been played
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that as per S. 61(2) every appeal must be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
[Reliance Capital (RCap) Resolution] CoC has power to negotiate and call for higher bid; NCLAT allows another round of bidding
The NCLAT held that even after completion of challenge mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retains its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP.
NCLAT upholds NCLT’s rejection to dislodge resolution plan against POSCO India Processing Center Private Limited
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
Once Resolution Plan approved and submitted to Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be sent back for re-consideration: NCLAT
In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.
NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor
In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority’s order was not followed in its true spirit.
NCLAT stays Insolvency proceeding against Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd
The NCLAT granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) by staying bankruptcy proceedings against them, after the NCLT admitted S. 7 application and directed the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor/ZEEL.
In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? NCLAT Answers
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.
[IBC] Statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim; Delhi High Court quashes show cause issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
In the instant case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence neither submitted proof of claim nor responded to a specific communication via an e-mail addressed to Senior Intelligence Officer. This is a case where despite knowledge, the statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim.