{"id":247430,"date":"2021-04-21T09:11:56","date_gmt":"2021-04-21T03:41:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=247430"},"modified":"2021-04-21T09:35:47","modified_gmt":"2021-04-21T04:05:47","slug":"tripartite-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):<\/strong> A Coram of Bansi Lal Bhat, J. (Acting Chairperson), Anant Bijay Singh, J. (Judicial Member) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) was of the opinion that Spectrum is a natural resource and the Government is holding the same as cestui que trust<\/em>. Resultantly, it cannot be treated as a security interest by the lenders and they cannot be said to be the owners in possession but only in occupation of the right to use spectrum. And that it would not be available to use without payment of requisite dues.<\/p>\n

The 10 appeals were against approval of resolution plans in respect of Aircel Ltd., Dishnet Wireless Ltd. and Aircel Cellular Ltd. in terms of common order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.<\/p>\n

In the present matter the debt-ridden telecom companies that are undergoing insolvency proceedings sought rights to their spectrum where they claimed\u00a0 it as a security interest. It was therefore alleged, that the defaulting Licensees\/TelCos sought to wriggle out of their liabilities by resorting to triggering of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by seeking initiation of CIRP under Section 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) not for purposes of resolution but fraudulently and with malicious intent of withholding the huge arrears payable to Government, obtaining moratorium to abort Government\u2019s move to suspend, revoke or terminate the Licences and in the event of a Resolution Plan being approved, subjecting the Central Government to be contented with the peanuts offered to it as \u2018Operational Creditor\u2019, if at all anything survives for the Operational Creditors within the ambit of distribution mechanism contemplated under Section 53 of the Code. Further that it was indisputable that the Licensees are the self-confessed defaulters having contravened terms and conditions of Licence Agreement on account of nonpayment of contractual dues towards use of spectrum causing huge pecuniary loss to the Nation besides being guilty of breach of trust but instead of rectifying the breach raised disputes of sorts to evade the huge outstanding payment. Counsel representing the Union of India remarked that \u201c\u2026The twin requirements of payment of dues and maintenance of services are the imprimatur of the licence agreement as the same would protect the public interest. while the Tripartite Agreement was entered to facilitate the financing of the project by Lenders and enabled Lenders to procure assignment or transfer of licence, the interest of DOT was never intended to be inferior to the interests of Lenders\u201d. It was further submitted that the Aircel Companies stopped operations before going into insolvency and for about three years spectrum was being wasted.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondent among other things submitted that the same being payable for the grants arising prior to commencement of CIRP would not be required to be paid during the moratorium period.<\/p>\n

In the pertinent case, the issues involved were:<\/p>\n

-Whether Telecom Service Providers can be said to be the owner based on the right to use the spectrum under licence granted to them?<\/p>\n

-Whether a licence is a contractual arrangement? Whether ownership belongs to the Government of India?<\/p>\n

-Whether spectrum being under contract can be subjected to proceedings under Section 18 of the Code?<\/p>\n

– Whether the spectrum can be said to be in possession, which arises from ownership. What is the distinction between possession and occupation? Whether possession correlates with the ownership right?<\/p>\n

-The difference between trading and insolvency proceedings and whether a licence can be transferred under the insolvency proceedings, particularly when the trading is subjected to clearance of dues by seller or buyer, as the case may be, as provided in guideline nos. 10 and 11; whereas in insolvency proceedings dues are wiped off. Guideline No. 12 is also assumed to be of significance in case spectrum is subjected to insolvency proceedings, which must be considered. the licence contained an agreement between the licensor, licensee, and the lenders, whether on the basis of that, spectrum can be treated as a security interest and what is the mode of its enforcement.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal dealt with the matter in depth, and appreciated the articulate oral submissions so made that helped the case to see the light of the day. Thus, drafted the following summary:<\/p>\n

Summary of Findings<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

-Is a natural resource and the Government is the trustee, therefore not be available to use without payment of requisite dues.<\/p>\n

-Being an intangible asset can be subjected to insolvency\/liquidation proceedings.<\/p>\n

-Dues of Central Government\/ DOT under the Licence fall within the ambit of Operational Dues under the Code and payment installments of spectrum acquisition cost also fall within the ambit.<\/p>\n

-As per Revenue Sharing Regime and the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the nature of dues payable to Licenser continues to be \u2018Operational Dues\u2019 which are payable primarily in terms of the Licence Agreement.<\/p>\n

-Triggering of CIRP under the Code with malicious or fraudulent intention, would be impermissible.<\/p>\n

-Telecom Service Providers have the right to use spectrum under licence granted to them. They cannot be said to be the owners in possession of the spectrum but only in occupation of the right to use spectrum. Ownership of spectrum belongs to Nation (people) with Government only being its Trustee. Possession correlates with the ownership right.<\/p>\n

-Under Section 18 of the Code, the Interim Resolution Professional is bound to monitor the assets of the Corporate Debtor and manage its operations, take control and custody.<\/p>\n

– Insolvency Proceedings arise out of default in discharge of financial or operational debt and are triggered for insolvency resolution of corporate persons, etc. in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons.<\/p>\n

\u00a0-While a licence can be transferred as an intangible asset of the Licensee \/Corporate Debtor under Insolvency Proceedings in ordinary circumstances, however as the trading is subjected to clearance of dues by Seller or Buyer, as the case may be, the Transferor\/Seller or Transferee\/Buyer being in default, would not qualify for transfer of licence under the insolvency proceedings.<\/p>\n

-The spectrum cannot be utilised without payment of requisite dues which cannot be wiped off by triggering CIRP under the Code.<\/p>\n

-The defaulting Licensees\/ TelCos cannot withhold the huge arrears payable to Government, obtaining moratorium to abort Government\u2019s move to suspend, revoke or terminate the Licences and in the event of a Resolution Plan being approved, subjecting the Central Government to be contended with the peanuts offered to it as \u2018Operational Creditor\u2019 within the ambit of distribution mechanism contemplated under Section 53 of the Code.<\/p>\n

-Having regard to Clause 3.4 and 3.5 of the Tripartite Agreement according priority\/ first charge to DOT, the spectrum cannot be treated as a security interest by the Lenders. Therefore, the mode of Enforcement of security interest was not considered.<\/p>\n

\u00a0[Union of India v. Vijaykumar V. Iyer, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 733 of 2020], decided on 13-04-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Tribunal:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Counsel for the Appellant<\/p>\n

Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Pooja Mahajan, Gitesh Chopra, Vidur Mohan, Kanu Agrawal and Shefali Munde<\/p>\n

Counsel for the Respondent<\/p>\n

Ravi Kadam and Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Advocates with Anoop Rawat,\u00a0 Charu Bansal, Ankita Mandal, Vaijayant Paliwal, Saurav Panda, Kriti Kalyani and Salonee Kulkarni, Advocates for R1. Dhruv Dewan, Harshita Choubey, Dhruv Sethi, Chandni Ghatak and Rohan Batra, Advocates for R-2. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Raunak Dhillon, Aditya Marwah, Madhav Kanoria, Shubhankar Jain, Shivkrit Rai and Rajshree Chaudhary, Advocates for R-3<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Coram of Bansi Lal Bhat, J. (Acting Chairperson), Anant Bijay Singh, J. (Judicial Member) and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":153604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[29785,22014,35886],"class_list":["post-247430","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-law","tag-nclat","tag-tripartite-agreement"],"yoast_head":"\nNCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d? | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Tripartite Agreement\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Tripartite Agreement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-04-21T03:41:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-04-21T04:05:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"844\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/\",\"name\":\"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d? | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-21T03:41:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-21T04:05:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Tripartite Agreement\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":844},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d? | SCC Times","description":"Tripartite Agreement","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d?","og_description":"Tripartite Agreement","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-04-21T03:41:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-04-21T04:05:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":844,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/","name":"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d? | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","datePublished":"2021-04-21T03:41:56+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-21T04:05:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Tripartite Agreement","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","width":1330,"height":844},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/21\/tripartite-agreement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCLAT | 10 Appeals, one tripartite agreement, with almost similar quandary on \u2018Spectrum\u2019| Non payment of dues-Can Spectrum be used as security interest in insolvency and moratorium as an excuse| Convoluted attempts to \u201coffer peanuts\u201d?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":215461,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/07\/nclat-claim-to-be-a-financial-creditor-valid-when-the-amount-disbursed-has-been-made-for-consideration-of-time-value-of-money-in-favour-of-borrower\/","url_meta":{"origin":247430,"position":0},"title":"NCLAT | Claim to be a ‘financial creditor’ valid when amount disbursed has been made for consideration of time value of money in favour of borrower","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 7, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Coram of Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. (Chairperson), A.I.S. Cheema, J. (Judicial Member) and Kanthi Narhari (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited claiming to be a financial creditor of Rudra Buildwell Projects Private Limited. The appellant, Indiabulls, had sanctioned a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288623,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/06\/can-spectrum-licence-be-treated-as-an-asset-in-the-cirp-initiated-by-a-creditor-under-insolvency-bankruptcy-code-2016-union-of-india-v-vijaykumar-v-iyer-a-case-comment\/","url_meta":{"origin":247430,"position":1},"title":"Can Spectrum Licence be Treated as an Asset in the CIRP Initiated by a Creditor Under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 | Union of India v. Vijaykumar V. Iyer: A case comment","author":"Editor","date":"April 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Tarun Gulati\u2020 and Madhav Goel\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1015.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1015.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1015.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1015.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258878,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/22\/telecom-sector\/","url_meta":{"origin":247430,"position":2},"title":"Hunch to Preserve the Telecom Sector Becomes a Window to Sabotage Concluded Resolution Processes","author":"Editor","date":"December 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Anurag Tripathi* and Naman Singh Bagga**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-181.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-181.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-181.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-181.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-181.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205223,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/15\/binani-industries-cannot-not-pay-dues-and-settle-ultratech-cements-revised-resolution-plan-for-binani-cement-accepted-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":247430,"position":3},"title":"Binani Industries cannot now repay dues and settle; UltraTech Cement\u2019s revised resolution plan for Binani Cement accepted: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 15, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Two-Member bench comprising of S.J. Mukhopadhya (Chairperson) and Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) disposed of a set of company appeals by directing National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata to set up a monitoring committee for implementation of the approved revised resolution plan for Binani\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332849,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/10\/an-one-time-settlement-agreement-cannot-extend-the-date-of-default-nclat-dismisses-samrat-restaurants-cirp-plea-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":247430,"position":4},"title":"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea","author":"Ritu","date":"October 10, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCLAT held the appellant\u2019s claim was inflated, and the Adjudicating Authority rightly recalculated the actual unpaid amount, which fell below the Rs 1 crore threshold.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":296791,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/14\/employees-provident-fund-gratuity-dues-even-if-funds-not-available-with-liquidator-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":247430,"position":5},"title":"Employees entitled to Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund dues even if funds not available with Liquidator: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"July 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"NCLAT held that the Provident Fund and Gratuity dues of the appellant are to be paid in full.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national company law appellate tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247430","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247430"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247430\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}