{"id":306105,"date":"2023-11-01T14:00:16","date_gmt":"2023-11-01T08:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=306105"},"modified":"2023-11-30T16:03:55","modified_gmt":"2023-11-30T10:33:55","slug":"nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLT can\u2019t impose fine on suspended directors for non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:<\/span> While deciding whether the Adjudicating Authority had the jurisdiction to impose a fine on the appellants for their non-cooperation with the Resolution Professional and Liquidator during the insolvency and liquidation process, a division bench comprising of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Mr. Naresh Salecha* (Technical Member)<\/span>, held that the imposition of a fine should be dealt with by a Special Court, not the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT set aside the impugned order and the case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, M\/s Gupta Marriage Halls (P) Ltd., a private limited company engaged in the business of hotels, restaurants, and marriage halls availed credit facilities from Punjab National Bank. Punjab National Bank filed an application under Section 7<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC), leading to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) an appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). During the CIRP, IRP filed an application under Section 19(2) of the IBC, alleging non-cooperation from the suspended directors.<\/p>\n

Later, the Adjudicating Authority ordered the liquidation of the corporate debtor and appointed a new liquidator. The Liquidator filed a separate application under Section 34(3) of the Code, alleging non-cooperation from the suspended board of directors and seeking similar relief against the suspended directors.<\/p>\n

The Adjudicating Authority combined both applications seeking similar relief. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 02-03-2022 imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants (suspended directors) for non-cooperation during the CIRP.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellants preferred an appeal before NCLAT challenging the same.<\/p>\n

Appellants’ Contentions<\/p>\n

The appellants contended that the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to impose a fine under Section 70 of the IBC. It was claimed that the impugned order was inconsistent with the IBC’s provisions.<\/p>\n

The appellants contended that the Adjudicating Authority’s power to impose costs under Section 149 of the Companies Act was not applicable in this case. It was also asserted that the word “fine” was used in the impugned order and should be treated as a penalty.<\/p>\n

Respondent’s Contentions<\/p>\n

The respondent contended that the appellants obstructed the CIRP and the Liquidation Process. It was argued that the Adjudicating Authority had the power to impose costs as a means of enforcing cooperation. It was stated that the intent of the IBC’s provisions regarding cooperation would be undermined if the Adjudicating Authority could not impose costs.<\/p>\n

NCLAT’s Assessment<\/p>\n

The NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority erred in passing the impugned order and imposed a “fine” and not a “cost.” While clarifying that the distinction between a “fine” and a “cost”, the NCLAT stated that that the imposition of a fine was within the purview of Sections 70 and 236 of the IBC and that the Adjudicating Authority did not have the jurisdiction to impose a fine as it could only be done by a Special Court.<\/p>\n

“We are clear that the intent and legal basis of cost is different from intent and legal basis of penalty which includes “fine”. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the word “fine”, used consciously by the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order, is covered in penalty which is required to be dealt under Section 70 and 236 of the Code and which further is not within jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.”<\/p>\n

Court’s Decision<\/p>\n

While allowing the appeal, the NCLAT set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case back to the NCLT for a fresh decision. The parties were directed to appear before the NCLT on a specified date. No costs were awarded for the interlocutory application.<\/p>\n

[Rakesh Gupta<\/span> v. Mahesh Bansal<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2198<\/a>, order dated 19-10-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Mr. Ashish Choudhury, Mr. S C Das, Counsel for the Appellants<\/p>\n

Mr. Mohak Sharma, Mr. Supriyo Banerjee, Counsel for the Respondent<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Adjudicating Authority erred in passing the impugned order, directing the imposition fine, overlooking the law of the land through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":293392,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[30361,36464,3686,39351,62412,30182,22014,62413],"class_list":["post-306105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-ibc","tag-imposition-of-fine","tag-Jurisdiction","tag-justice-anant-bijay-singh","tag-mr-naresh-salecha-technical-member","tag-national-company-law-appellate-tribunal","tag-nclat","tag-non-cooperation"],"yoast_head":"\nNCLT have no jurisdiction for imposition of fine on suspended directors' non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority doesn't have jurisdiction for imposition of fine on non-cooperation by suspended directors under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC.\" \/>\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\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCLT can\u2019t impose fine on suspended directors for non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority doesn't have jurisdiction for imposition of fine on non-cooperation by suspended directors under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-11-01T08:30:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-30T10:33:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"NCLT can\u2019t impose fine on suspended directors for non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 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\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/\",\"name\":\"NCLT have no jurisdiction for imposition of fine on suspended directors' non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-11-01T08:30:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-30T10:33:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority doesn't have jurisdiction for imposition of fine on non-cooperation by suspended directors under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"national company law appellate tribunal\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCLT can\u2019t impose fine on suspended directors for non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT\"}]},{\"@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\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NCLT have no jurisdiction for imposition of fine on suspended directors' non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT | SCC Blog","description":"NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority doesn't have jurisdiction for imposition of fine on non-cooperation by suspended directors under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC.","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\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCLT can\u2019t impose fine on suspended directors for non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT","og_description":"NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority doesn't have jurisdiction for imposition of fine on non-cooperation by suspended directors under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-11-01T08:30:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-30T10:33:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"NCLT can\u2019t impose fine on suspended directors for non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/","name":"NCLT have no jurisdiction for imposition of fine on suspended directors' non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp","datePublished":"2023-11-01T08:30:16+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-30T10:33:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority doesn't have jurisdiction for imposition of fine on non-cooperation by suspended directors under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"national company law appellate tribunal"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/01\/nclt-jurisdiction-imposition-fine-suspended-directors-non-cooperation-ibc-nclat-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCLT can\u2019t impose fine on suspended directors for non-cooperation under Sections 19(2) or 34(3) of IBC: NCLAT"}]},{"@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\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":312265,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/26\/nclat-affirms-committee-of-creditors-authority-to-opt-for-liquidation-under-section-332-of-the-ibc-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":306105,"position":0},"title":"NCLAT affirms Committee of Creditors\u2019 authority to opt for liquidation under Section 33(2) of the IBC; sets aside show cause notice","author":"Ritu","date":"January 26, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCLAT held that the CoC had the jurisdiction to decide on liquidation as per Section 33(2) and its explanation, even before completing all steps for resolution.","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":[]},{"id":282971,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/02\/tribunal-regulatory-bodies-and-commissions-monthly-roundup-january-2023-25-legal-stories-including-no-relief-in-cci-penalty-on-google-tds-deduction-and-interest-on-securities-high-level-commit\/","url_meta":{"origin":306105,"position":1},"title":"Tribunal, Regulatory Bodies and Commissions Monthly Roundup | January 2023 | 25+ Legal Stories including no relief in CCI penalty on Google, TDS deduction and interest on securities, high-level committee for Yamuna pollution, no clean chit to DLF, and more","author":"Editor","date":"February 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (ATE) Bureau of Energy Efficiency takes suo motu verification test on a sample refrigerator of Whirlpool India and found quality non-compliance; Appellate Tribunal for Electricity sets aside the order A division bench of Ramesh Ranganathan (Chairperson) and Sandesh Kumar Sharma (Technical Member) set aside the order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-258.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":281287,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/09\/corporate-debtor-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-resolution-plan-coc-approved-nclt-allowed-appeal-nclat-commercial-wisdom-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":306105,"position":2},"title":"NCLAT cannot direct modifications of claims once the Resolution Plan is approved","author":"Editor","date":"January 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In instant matter, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the NCLT order approving the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The NCLAT held that once Resolution plan is approved by CoC, it cannot direct modifications of claims to Resolution Plan as the Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":268174,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/09\/nclat-using-provisions-of-ibc-for-revival-of-tds-amounts-is-a-misuse-of-ibc-nclat-holds-defaults-over-non-payment-of-tds-is-not-a-ground-for-initiation-of-cirp\/","url_meta":{"origin":306105,"position":3},"title":"NCLAT| Using provisions of IBC for revival of TDS amounts is a misuse of IBC; NCLAT holds defaults over non-payment of TDS is not a ground for initiation of CIRP","author":"Editor","date":"June 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"A coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shreesha Merla (Technical member) and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that non-payment of TDS by the Corporate Debtor is not a default and an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be admitted over the same.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291227,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/04\/nclat-discusses-settlement-after-constitution-of-committee-of-creditors-under-ibc\/","url_meta":{"origin":306105,"position":4},"title":"What is the rule for settlement after constitution of ‘Committee of Creditors’? NCLAT Answers","author":"Ritu","date":"May 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAny 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.\u201d","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\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284102,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":306105,"position":5},"title":"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT","author":"Editor","date":"February 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While dismissing the appeal challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority which dismissed a S. 7 IBC application on the ground of want of limitation, the Tribunal held that there is no question of going into the merits of the case and the application is barred by limitation.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306105","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\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=306105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306105\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293392"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=306105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=306105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=306105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}