Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: June 2023

SUPREME COURTIs Resolution Professional A 'Public Servant' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act? Supreme Court To ExamineCase Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7029/2023The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, has issued notice in a plea challenging the ruling of the Jharkhand High Court that a Resolution Professional (RP) will be considered a ‘public servant’ under Section 2(c)(v) and Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).The High Court had opined that the Resolution Professional performs ‘public duty’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the PC Act and hence is a ‘public servant’ liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PC Act”). The impugned judgment was passed by the High Court while rejecting the petition praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding instituted against an Insolvency Professional, as well as the FIR registered for the offence under Section 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act) of the PC Act.Google Appeals To Supreme Court Against NCLAT Order Upholding Rs. 1337.76 Crores Penalty Imposed By CCIThe tech giant Google has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the National Company Law appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi, whereby the imposition of Rs. 1337.76 Crores penalty on Google by the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) was upheld. Google has been penalized for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in denial of market access for competing search apps.NCLATNCLAT Reprimands RP For Seeking Police Help For Security Of Assets Of Corporate Debtor Instead Of Private SecurityCase Title: RP Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. v Supdt. of Police Anandpura, Vadodra Gujarat & Ors.Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 682 of 2023The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held for security of private property of the Corporate Debtor, the Resolution Professional cannot seek deployment of police at site. Instead, the Resolution Professional is required to hire security personnel for the said purpose and make payment to them.“We are of the view that Resolution Professional should know that what prayers may be granted by the Adjudicating Authority and prayers which were made by the Resolution Professional requesting the Adjudicating Authority to direct deployment of police/gunmen at the site was wholly uncalled for. For security of private property, the RP has to hire security personnel for which payment has to be made for them. Prayers in the Applications were wholly inappropriate and has rightly been not considered.”Third Party Cannot Obtain Copy Of Resolution Plan Pending Approval By AA: NCLAT DelhiCase Title: Rupinder Singh Gill v Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd.Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 729 of 2021The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member), has held that a party who is not a Claimant, Creditor or a participant in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, is not entitled to be given a copy of the Resolution Plan which is pending approval or rejection before the Adjudicating Authority. The IBC also does not contain any such provision.Home Buyers Have No Right To File Intervention Application Prior To Admission Of Section 7 Petition: NCLAT DelhiCase Title: Vikash Kumar Mishra & Ors. v Orbis Trusteeship Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 246 of 2023The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that an intervention application filed by the homebuyers in petition under Section 7 of IBC is not maintainable before such petition gets admitted. The right to file such application would accrue after admission of the Section 7 petition. The homebuyers of ‘Sikka Kaamna Greens’ project had filed an intervention application supporting the case of the Corporate Debtor (Builder) that the petition under Section 7 of IBC must be rejected. Both NCLT and NCLAT rejected the application on grounds of maintainability.Delay In Filing Of Appeal Under Section 42 Of IBC Is Condonable Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act: NCLAT DelhiCase Title: Canara Bank v Commercial Tax Department Circle 09, Indore, Madhya Pradesh & Anr.Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 655 of 2023The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that delay in filing the Appeal under...

Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: June 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags