IBC Weekly Round Up[27th January-2nd February 2025]

Nominal Index: INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126 Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., WP.No,712/2024 and WMP.Nos.730 & 732/2024 Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs Daphne Reita Rajan Sharma & Anr., RERA APPEAL 7/2024 HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of Birla Tyres Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2023 In re: Proceedings against Goldman Sachs (India) Alternative Investment Management Private Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002, M&A/10/2020/01/CD Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Versus State Bank of India and Anr., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1609 of 2024 Amrit Rajani Versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Anr., Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 375 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1261, 1262 of 2023 K. Lakshmi Narayana v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2105 of 2024 Ramesh Jadhav Vs. Vakati Balasubramaniam Reddy & Anr.',Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 173 of 2025 State Bank of India Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 321 of 2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VS. M/S MBL (MP) TOLL ROAD COMPANY LIMITED, CP (IB) No.423/(PB)/2023 Supreme Court IBC | For Resolution Plan Involving Combination, Prior Approval Of Competition Commission Mandatory Before CoC Examination : Supreme Court Case name: INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126 The Supreme Court on January 29, by 2:1 majority, observed that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, containing a proposed combination(a merger or amalgamation of entities), should only be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after it has been approved by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). High Court Proviso To S.10A Of IBC Doesn't Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: Madras High Court Case Title: Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Case Number: WP.No,712/2024 and WMP.Nos.730 & 732/2024 The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period. The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for any default arising on or after 25.03.2020 for a period of six months. Moratorium U/S 14 Of IBC Doesn't Exempt Promoter From Complying With Mandatory Pre-Deposit Required U/S 43(5) Of RERA: Delhi High Court Case Title: Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs Daphne Reita Rajan Sharma & Anr. Case Number: RERA APPEAL 7/2024 The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not exempt a promoter from complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). NCLAT Commercial Wisdom Of CoC To Distribute Amount Based On Security Interest Under Resolution Plan Cannot Be Interfered With: NCLAT Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of Birla Tyres Ltd. & Ors. Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2023 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 commercial wisdom of the CoC to distribute the amount under the Resolution Plan based on security interest of the respective financial creditors cannot be interfered with provided provisions of the code are complied with. CCI Imposes ₹40 Lakh Penalty On Goldman Sachs For Failure To Notify Investment In Biocon Biologics U/S 6(2) Of Competition Act Case Title: In re: Proceedings against Goldman Sachs (India) Alternative Investment Management Private Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 Ref. No.: M&A/10/2020/01/CD The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has penalized Goldman Sachs INR 40 lakh under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002, for failing to notify its investment in Biocon Biologics Limited. Creditors Are Not Barred From Enforcing Personal Guarantee Signed On Their Behalf By Trust: NCLAT Case Title: Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Versus State Bank of India and Anr. Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1609 of 2024 The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice ...

IBC Weekly Round Up[27th January-2nd February 2025]

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags