IBC Weekly Digest: 11th November To 17th November 2024

Nominal Index 1. Central Bank of India Versus Deepen Arun Parekh, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 697 of 2024 2. CADILLAC INFOTECH PVT. LTD.Versus JKM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1610 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5879 of 2024 3. Globomet Engineering Private Limited Versus Shri Tejas J Parikh and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1080 of 2022 4. Chandrakant Khemka Versus Santanu Bhattacharjee and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1064 of 2023 5. SURENDRA SANCHETI Versus GOSPELL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES CO. LIMITED and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 583 of 2024 6. Narottamka Trade & Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., V SPP Insolvency Professionals LLP and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.305/2024 and (IA No.817/2024) 7. Twentyone Sugars Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INS) NO.487/2023 8. Sunil Surrendrakumar Kakkad Shareholder & Suspended Director of Sujyot Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sujyot Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1423 of 2024 9. M/s. Vilmar Agro Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs. SPC FAB Private Limited Saraswathi Nilayam & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 55/2024 10. Small Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI) V/s Harshad Deshpande and Anr., IA No. 2573/2021 In CP (IB) 4367/MB/ of 2018 11. Technology Development Board vs. M/s Perfect Infraengineers Limited, C.P.(IB) No. 322/MB/2023 NCLAT Adjudicating Authority Cannot Enter Into Merits At S. 95 Application Stage Before Report Of RP Is Submitted U/S 99 Of IBC: NCLAT Case Title:Central Bank of India Versus Deepen Arun Parekh Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 697 of 2024 The NLCAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) affirmed that Adjudicating Authority cannot exercise its adjudicatory power at the stage of consideration of application under section 95 of the IBC by entering into the merits of the case. The power which is conferred on the adjudicating authority at this stage is to appoint a resolution professional. The Adjudicatory role comes into play when a report is submitted by the Resolution Professional under section 99 recommending either to admit or reject the application. Directors Of Financial Creditors Not Disqualified From Filing Plea U/S 7 Of IBC Due To Sister Company's Default U/S 248 Of Companies Act: NCLAT Case Title: CADILLAC INFOTECH PVT. LTD.Versus JKM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD and Ors. Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1610 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5879 of 2024 The NLCAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that directors of the financial creditors are not disqualified from filing a petition under section 7 of the IBC merely on the ground that sister company of the financial creditors in which they were holding the same position, defaulted under section 248 of the Companies Act in failing to continue its business for continuous period of 2 years. The default under section 164(2) of the Companies Act has to be proved to disqualify them from acting as the directors in other companies than which is in default. Any Amount Proposed In Settlement Plan U/S 12A Of IBC Cannot Be Refunded If Plan Is Approved: NCLAT Case Title: Globomet Engineering Private Limited Versus Shri Tejas J Parikh and Ors. Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1080 of 2022 The NLCAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that any amount proposed in the settlement plan under section 12A of the IBC cannot be refunded if the plan is later approved and the CIRP is closed. In this case, a settlement plan was proposed by the appellant in which 3 crores rupees was proposed to be given to the financial creditors. This plan was later approved. Corporate Debtor's Property Cannot Be Recovered By Owner/Lessor During Moratorium Period U/S 14 Of IBC: NCLAT Case Title: Chandrakant Khemka Versus Santanu Bhattacharjee and Ors. Case Reference: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1064 of 2023 The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) affirmed that properties occupied by the corporate debtor cannot be recovered by owner/lessor during the moratorium period under section 14 of the IBC. In this case, the NCLT had handed over the possession of the property of the CD to the respondents on the submission of RP that the property was no longer required. This submission of the RP was not backed by the decision of the CoC. In Absence Of Pre-Existing Dispute,...

IBC Weekly Digest: 11th November To 17th November 2024

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags