NCLAT Reprimands Haryana Excise And Taxation Department For Its Casual Attitude

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Jain and Dr Alok Srivastava expressed its displeasure towards the casual attitude of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department in pursuing the case before the NCLAT. The Bench remarked that the excise and taxation department is claiming an amount of Rupees 62.87 Crores in the appeal...

Banker's Certificate Not Mandatorily Required To Trigger CIRP Under Section 9 Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal in M/s Quippo Infrastructure Limited v M.R. Nirman Private Ltd., has held that a Banker's Certificate is not mandatorily required to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process...

Explainer: What Are PUFE Transactions Under The IBC, 2016?

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, reckoned to be a landmark legislation is a significant departure from previous insolvency regimes with the loss of defaulter's paradise and resurrection of economy's rightful position. However, certain challenges have come to the fore in the wake of vulnerable transactions entered into by the corporate debtor (CD) during the timeline of the pre-insolvency twilight period. The UNICITRAL Legislative Guide defines such transactions as "provisions ...

Only Creditors Who Triggered Insolvency Resolution Process Can Be Impleaded As A Party: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Chennai Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application filed in V. Venkata Sivakumar v IDBI Bank Ltd., has held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") has no provision to implead creditors other than the ones which triggered...

Section 14 Of IBC Does Not Differentiate Between Assessment, Quasi-Judicial Or Judicial Proceedings: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice P.N. Deshmukh (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application filed in M/S Ravi Infrastructure & Projects v KSS Petron Private Limited, has held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") does not differentiate between...

NCLT Can Reject The Resolution Plan Due To Non Serious & Casual Conduct Of Resolution Applicant: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate tribunal principal bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M Satyanarayana murthy, Mr Barun Mitra held that non serious and casual conduct of a resolution applicant is a sufficient ground to reject the resolution plan filed by such resolution applicant and approved by the committee of creditors of the Corporate Debtor. . Brief Facts...

Certified Copy Preparation Period Can Be Excluded For Limitation Under Section 61 Of The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra recently held that the time taken for preparation of the certified copy of the order/judgment will be excluded for computation of limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Appellant against...

SBI Files Insolvency Proceedings Against Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd., A Bajaj Group Enterprise

Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. ("BHSL") is a part of the Bajaj Group of Companies and is a leading manufacturer of sugar and ethanol in India. BHSL has 14 sugar manufacturing plants across Uttar Pradesh which have aggregate sugarcane crushing capacity of 136,000 TCD (tonnes crushed per day) and alcohol distillation capacity of 800 KLD (kilolitres per day). Besides, BHSL is also one of...

NCLT Mumbai Initiates Insolvency Against Topworth Urja & Metals, A Topworth Group Enterprise

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice P.N. Deshmukh (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), while adjudicating a petition filed in Bank of Baroda v Topworth Urja & Metals Limited, has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. over a default of...

Moratorium Under Section 14 Of Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Is No Bar For Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 66 Of The Code: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice N Satyanarayana Murthy and Mr. Barun Mitra held that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code/IBC) is not a bar for initiation of proceedings against the resolution professional of a company undergoing Corporate...

IBC Cases Weekly Round Up: 8 August To 14 August, 2022

Supreme Court S.7(5)(b) IBC | Provision To Notify Financial Creditor Before Rejecting Claim Extends To Appeals Before NCLAT: Supreme Court Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Private Limited & Ors. Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2176 of 2020, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K....

S.7(5)(b) IBC | Provision To Notify Financial Creditor Before Rejecting Claim Extends To Appeals Before NCLAT: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has that provision of Section 7(5)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which requires the Adjudicating Authority to notify the Financial Creditor before rejection of a claim, would be applicable to appeals as well, since appeal is the continuation of original proceedings(Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Private Limited And Ors). A...