Authorised Representative Can Be Replaced By Following Procedure Provided Under Regulation 16(3A) Of CIRP Regulations: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the Authorised Representative can be replaced by following the procedure engrafted under Regulation 16(3A) of the CIRP Regulations therefore the application of an individual homebuyer seeking replacement of the Authorised...

Admission Order Of Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Recalled If Fraud Or Malicious Intent Is Proved U/S 65 Of Code: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when CIRP proceedings are initiated fraudulently or maliciously, the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction under the IBC to consider the allegations of fraudulent and malicious initiation of CIRP proceedings in terms of Section 65...

Initiation Of Recovery Proceedings Before DRT Does Not Preclude Financial Creditor From Filing Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that initiation of recovery proceedings before the DRT does not prohibit financial creditors from filing an application under section 7 of the code. Brief Facts: The present appeal has been filed by suspended director of the...

When Entire Liability Is Not Discharged After Selling Pledged Shares, Application U/S 7 IBC Can Be Filed To Claim Remaining Amount: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when the entire liability of the corporate debtor after selling the pledged shares is not discharged, an application under section 7 of the IBC can be filed for claiming the remaining amount. Brief Facts: The present appeal...

Sale Arising From Collusive Suit Where Bank Isn't Party Does Not Bind Either Bank Or Auction Purchaser: DRAT Chennai

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Chennai bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan (Chairperson) has held that a sale arising from a collusive suit, where the bank was not a party to the proceedings, does not bind the bank or the auction purchaser of the property under SARFAESI proceedings. Facts In 1991, the 2nd Respondent Bank sanctioned loans to one Mr. Raju. Ms. D. Ratchaka,...

166 Days Delay In Re-Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned In Absence Of Genuine And Plausible Explanation: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a delay of 166 in re-filing an appeal cannot be condoned in the absence of a plausible and genuine explanation offered for the same. Brief Facts The present application I.A. No.6903 of 2024 is an application praying for condonation of 166 days delay in refiling...

Interest On Operational Debt Cannot Be Claimed Unless There Is An Express Agreement: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that as per section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, interest on invoices cannot be claimed by the operational creditor in the absence of any stipulations in the agreement to this effect. Brief Facts This appeal has...

Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC Is Not Maintainable After Dissolution Of Corporate Debtor U/S 54: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an appeal under section 61 of the IBC cannot be entertained after the dissolution of the corporate debtor under section 54 of the code. Brief Facts This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by National Company Law Tribunal...

IBC Weekly Round Up [6th January-12th January 2025]

NOMINAL INDEX: Harpal Singh Chawla v. Vivek Khanna & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14708/2024 Drish Shoes Workers Union Versus Drish Shoes Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2281 of 2024 & I.A. No.8501 of 2024 Nabard Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd Versus Dharmendra Kumar, (Official Liquidator for IAP Company Pvt. Ltd.), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2196...

Limitation Period To Reset When Part-Payment Of Debt Is Made By Personal Guarantor U/S 19 Of Limitation Act: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Delhi comprising of Justice Subrata Kumar Dash (Member Technical) and Justice Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Member Judicial) dismissed an appeal filed by the personal guarantors of the principal debtor M/s VCRM Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. stating that the appeal falls within the ambit of limitation period as prescribed under Section 19 of Limitation act,...

Commercial Wisdom Of CoC In Opting For Liquidation And Rejecting Resolution Plan Of Ineligible Applicant Is “Non-Justiciable”: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has held that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in rejecting a resolution plan and opting for liquidation is “non-justiciable”. The Appellant-Director was disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, thereby rendering the him ineligible to be a Resolution...

Appeal U/S 421 Of Companies Act Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Order Permitting AGM, No Substantive Rights Affected: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, against an interlocutory order permitting holding of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) without affecting the substantive rights of the appellants is not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural orders which do not determine substantive rights cannot be...