IBC Weekly Round-Up [3rd March To 9th March, 2025]

Nominal Index: Shri Krishan V. H.S Oberoi Buildtech Private Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2025 Mr. Shailendra Singh, Resolution Professional of Foxdom Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr., ΙΑ NO. 4689 OF 2023 IN IB-102(ND)/2022 Himanshu Singh, Suspended Director of Kriti Prakashan Private Limited Versus HDFC Bank Limited and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 of 2025 Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2012-2013 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7544 of 2024 Mr. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi vs. Mr. Sunil Gutte & 5 other, I.A. 1833 OF 2019 in C.P.(IB) No. 2295/MB/2018 J.K. PAPER FIBRE RESOURCES Through its Partner Mr. Jitendra K. Shah Versus Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 76 of 2025 Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285 SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284 M/s IL&FS Financial Services Limited vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, CP No.: IB 558(ND)/2024 M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31823 of 2019] Supreme Court Supreme Court Wonders Why NCLAT Wrote Long Order On Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency Case Title – Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285 The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), despite having a high pendency of cases, devoted extensive time and effort to writing a 17-page order on a delay condonation application. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that lengthy submissions and pleadings by members of the Bar often contribute to unnecessarily verbose orders. IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar Execution Of Penalties Imposed Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court Case Title: SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284 In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (March 4) ruled that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”). The Court explained that Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes certain liabilities, such as fines and penalties, from the moratorium's effect. As a result, penalties imposed by Consumer Redressal Forums under the regulatory statutes like the CP Act do not fall within the scope of the moratorium. High Court [Noida Sports City Scam] Allahabad HC Lays Down Guidelines Regarding Rights Of Other Members Of Consortium When One Member Goes Into Insolvency Case Title: M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31823 of 2019] While directing CBI inquiry against officials of New Okhla Development Authority and various allottes/ builder involved in development of the Sporty City project in Noida, the Allahabad High Court laid down guidelines regarding the rights of other members of consortium, when one member goes into insolvency as the same is not provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Holding that the IBC is not indented to hamper projects of national importance, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar laid down the following guidelines: NCLAT Approved Resolution Plan Cannot Be Reopened For Belatedly Agitated Claims: NCLAT Case Title: Shri Krishan V. H.S Oberoi Buildtech Private Ltd. Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2025 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed a set of four appeals filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 stating that the appellants had failed to exercise due diligence on protecting their rights with the prescribed timelines. Promoter Undergoing CIRP Can Be Permitted To Complete Project For Benefit Of Homebuyer: NCLAT The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended directors of the Supertech Township Projects Ltd stating that the resolution plan of the corporate debtor must proceed strictly as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. No Straight Jacket Formula Can Be Laid Down For Adjudication Of Application U/S 12A Of IBC & Objections Therein: NCLAT Case Title: Himanshu...

IBC Weekly Round-Up [3rd March To 9th March, 2025]

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags