{"id":332849,"date":"2024-10-10T17:30:07","date_gmt":"2024-10-10T12:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=332849"},"modified":"2024-11-07T11:54:05","modified_gmt":"2024-11-07T06:24:05","slug":"an-one-time-settlement-agreement-cannot-extend-the-date-of-default-nclat-dismisses-samrat-restaurants-cirp-plea-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi:<\/span> In an appeal challenging the Adjudicating Authority’s order dismissing appellant’s insolvency petition under of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC), a 3-member bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr.<\/span> Arun Baroka* (Technical Member)<\/span>, upheld that NCLT’s decision that the debt amount was insufficient to meet the threshold required for CIRP initiation due to the Section 10A protections and lack of valid interest claims.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

In the instant matter, the Samrat Restaurant (the appellant) and the Brewcrafts Microbrewing Private Limited (the respondent), entered into a Leave and Licence agreement (L&L agreement). The appellant in the case demanded Rs. 5,22,95,571\/- as unpaid dues. The proceedings under Section 9<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> were initiated by the appellant against the respondents. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the petition under Section 9<\/a> IBC<\/a> and held that a portion of the default occurred during the period protected by Section 10A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>, and the remaining default amount did not meet the threshold of Rs 1 crore required to initiate CIRP. The exclusions as per Section 10-A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> led to the debt being decreased to less than 1 crore.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the NCLT was correct in excluding the portion of the debt falling within the Section 10A period and reducing the overall debt below Rs 1 crore?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the appellant’s inclusion of interest in the claim was justified despite no contractual provision for it?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Appellant’s Contentions<\/h3>\n

    The appellant contended that the corporate debtor in this case failed to honour the terms and conditions of the agreements and defaulted on paying the licence fees and other dues on time. On 16-11-2018 the Operational Creditor issued a notice to the respondent to pay the outstanding amount to the tune of Rs. 99,85,540 and on 06-02-2019 another notice of Rs 1,04,06,031 was given to the respondent. The Appellant contended that the notices were duly acknowledged by the respondent and part-payments were made from time to time and by March 2020 only Rs 52,50,000 remained unpaid. The licence fee was also revised and by way of an undertaking on 29.08.2021 the respondent agreed to clear their dues amounting to Rs 1,18,82,400. On 27.03.2023 the respondent in this case illegally removed the furniture from the premises and vacated the premises and refused to clear their dues. The Adjudicating authority as per the appellant failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent in this case had agreed for a One Time Settlement on 31.03.2023 to pay their dues amounting to Rs 1,06,00,000 and thus the amount is not barred by Section 10A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. The Adjudicating authority failed to apply the Doctrine of ‘Accord and Satisfaction’ and denied the interest on the outstanding licence amount. The Appellant relied upon Rubra Buildwell Constructions (P) Ltd<\/span> v. PSA Impex<\/span>, (Company Petition No. IB-11\/ND\/2022), to further their contentions. The appellant argued that the rejection of the dues by stating it to be inflated and wrongful additions and consequently stating that the total debt does not cross the threshold of Rs 1 Crore.<\/p>\n

    Respondent’s Contentions<\/h3>\n

    The Respondent rejected the appellant’s contentions and stated that the reminders of the payment were for the pending licence fee only and were not intended for the One Time Settlement. The respondent contended that the amount claimed by the appellant falls under the prohibited period as per Section 10-A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. The respondent relied upon SLB Welfare Assn<\/span>. v. PSA IMPEX (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1584<\/a>, to further their contentions. <\/span> It was argued that the appellant should have excluded the amount falling under Section 10-A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> in the Section 8 Notice and the application under Section 9. The respondent stated that as per Krishna Enterprises<\/span> v. Gammon India Ltd.<\/span>, 2018 SCC Online NCLAT 360<\/a>, the ‘debt’ cannot be stated to include ‘interest’ in all the cases and thus the interest amount claimed by the Appellant was correctly excluded as the wrongful amount.<\/p>\n

    NCLAT’s Observations<\/h3>\n

    The NCLAT observed that the adjudicating authority was correct in holding that a portion of default amount falls under the protected period of Section 10-A. The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s decision that the L&L agreement did not include a provision for interest, and therefore, the Rs 1.66 crore claimed as interest could not be considered as part of the operational debt.<\/p>\n

    The NCLAT stated that the amount claimed as One Time Settlement was only a stopgap payment. The NCLAT held that “the OTS agreement did not alter the date of default, and the default during the Section 10A period remained protected under law.”<\/span> The appellant, as per the NCLAT, has artificially inflated the claims and amounts and thus the interest on the default payments cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n

    The NCLAT affirmed that Section 10A protected the respondent from insolvency proceedings for any default occurring during the COVID-19 lockdown period (March 25, 2020 – March 25, 2021). The NCLAT stated that the portion of the defaulted amount falling within this period (Rs 69.30 lakh) was rightly excluded by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT stated that the Adjudicating Authority had correctly interpreted Section 10-A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> and the total payable amount comes at Rs. 35,02,857 and the threshold amount of Rs 1 Crore is not crossed.<\/p>\n

    NCLAT’s Decision<\/h3>\n

    The NCLAT held that —<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Section 10A<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> prohibits the initiation of CIRP for defaults that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic period, and this protection cannot be bypassed by subsequent agreements.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Interest on operational debts is only valid if explicitly agreed upon between the parties. Without a clear provision in the contract, interest claims cannot inflate the default amount.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      The mandatory threshold for initiating CIRP must be met without including any debt that is protected under Section 10A.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The NCLAT consequently dismissed the appeal with an observation that manipulating and inflating the figures was an abuse of the insolvency proceedings.<\/p>\n

      [Samrat Restaurant<\/span> v. Brewcrafts Microbrewing (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1148<\/a>, order dated 25-09-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

      *Judgment by Arun Baroka (Technical Member)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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

      Mr. Ramchandra Madan, Counsel for the Appellant<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The NCLAT held the appellant’s claim was inflated, and the Adjudicating Authority rightly recalculated the actual unpaid amount, which fell below the Rs 1 crore threshold.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":315817,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[73957,60466,73961,30361,22064,73959,46429,73962,30182,22014,73960,73958],"class_list":["post-332849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-arun-baroka-technical-member","tag-barun-mitra-technical-member","tag-date-of-default","tag-ibc","tag-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code","tag-insolvency-proceeding","tag-justice-ashok-bhushan","tag-ll-agreement","tag-national-company-law-appellate-tribunal","tag-nclat","tag-one-time-settlement-agreement","tag-samrat-restaurants-cirp-plea"],"yoast_head":"\n\u2018An One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea and held that \u2018an One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019.\" \/>\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\/2024\/10\/10\/an-one-time-settlement-agreement-cannot-extend-the-date-of-default-nclat-dismisses-samrat-restaurants-cirp-plea-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea and held that \u2018an One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"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\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-10-10T12:00:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-11-07T06:24:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.png\" \/>\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\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea\" \/>\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=\"5 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\/2024\/10\/10\/an-one-time-settlement-agreement-cannot-extend-the-date-of-default-nclat-dismisses-samrat-restaurants-cirp-plea-scc-times\/\",\"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\/\",\"name\":\"\u2018An One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-10T12:00:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-07T06:24:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea and held that \u2018an One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"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\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea\"}]},{\"@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":"\u2018An One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea | SCC Times","description":"NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea and held that \u2018an One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019.","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\/2024\/10\/10\/an-one-time-settlement-agreement-cannot-extend-the-date-of-default-nclat-dismisses-samrat-restaurants-cirp-plea-scc-times\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea","og_description":"NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea and held that \u2018an One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019.","og_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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-10-10T12:00:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-11-07T06:24:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"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":"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\/","name":"\u2018An One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp","datePublished":"2024-10-10T12:00:07+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-07T06:24:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea and held that \u2018an One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"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\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["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\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"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\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"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\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018A One Time Settlement agreement cannot extend the date of default\u2019; NCLAT dismisses Samrat Restaurant\u2019s CIRP plea"}]},{"@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\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":348725,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/26\/single-homebuyer-cant-challenge-coc-approved-resolution-plan-nclat-upholds-cocs-commercial-wisdom-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":332849,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Single Homebuyer can\u2019t challenge CoC approved Resolution Plan\u2019; NCLAT upholds CoC\u2019s commercial wisdom","author":"Ritu","date":"May 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"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.\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\/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":294234,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/09\/nclat-allows-revival-of-cirp-process-scc-blog-legal-news-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":332849,"position":1},"title":"Insolvency proceeding can be restored when Consent term entered between parties includes a revival clause: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"June 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential\u201d, held NCLAT","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":308342,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/04\/tribunal-roundup-october-november-october-2023-tribunal-news-legal\/","url_meta":{"origin":332849,"position":2},"title":"Tribunal RoundUp October and November 2023| Top Stories on Low Groundwater levels, Delhi\u2019s Air Quality Index, Baap of Chart and more","author":"Arunima","date":"December 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies, Commissions for the month of October and November 2023.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tribunal RoundUp October and November","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Tribunal-RoundUp-October-and-November.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Tribunal-RoundUp-October-and-November.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Tribunal-RoundUp-October-and-November.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Tribunal-RoundUp-October-and-November.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294481,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/13\/nclat-operational-creditor-cannot-seek-cirp-section-9-ibc-exist-real-dispute-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":332849,"position":3},"title":"Operational creditor cannot seek to initiate CIRP against Corporate Debtor when real dispute exists: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"June 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority's order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.","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":285762,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/01\/scconline-legalroundup-14-rulings-from-tribunals-commissions-regulatory-bodies-february-roundup-2023-shiv-sena-party-symbol-dispute-medical-negligence-compensation-nclat-itat-election-commission-natio\/","url_meta":{"origin":332849,"position":4},"title":"Top 14 Rulings from Tribunals, Commissions, Regulatory Authorities: Shiv Sena Party Symbol Dispute, Income Tax Act, Medical Negligence and more| February 2023 Roundup","author":"Arunima","date":"March 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.","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\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-574.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-574.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-574.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-574.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":341144,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/12\/financial-creditors-involvement-in-project-monitoring-does-not-absolve-corporate-debtors-from-repayment-obligations-nclat-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":332849,"position":5},"title":"Financial Creditors\u2019 involvement in project monitoring does not absolve Corporate Debtors from repayment obligations: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"February 12, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAny dispute even pending in the arbitration does not in any manner prohibit the financial creditor to take remedy under Section 7 IBC.\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\/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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332849","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=332849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332849\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/315817"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=332849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=332849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=332849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}