IBC Cases Weekly Round-Up: 15 August To 21 August 2022

NCLAT Banker's Certificate Not Mandatorily Required To Trigger CIRP Under Section 9 Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: M/s Quippo Infrastructure Limited v M.R. Nirman Private Limited Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1516 of 2019. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that a Banker's Certificate is not mandatorily required to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. NCLAT Reprimands Haryana Excise And Taxation Department For Its Casual Attitude Case Title: Excise and Taxation Department v Allied Strips Ltd. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1506 OF 2019 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Jain and Dr Alok Srivastava expressed its displeasure towards the casual attitude of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department in pursuing the case before the NCLAT. The Bench remarked that the excise and taxation department is claiming an amount of Rupees 62.87 Crores in the appeal but the department is not interested in pursuing the matter as no one appeared on behalf of the department even after repeated calls. The Bench also noted that this matter shall be brought to the knowledge of Secretary, Department of Excise and Taxation, Government of Haryana to take appropriate actions against the officers who are not pursuing the appeal diligently. Moratorium Under Section 14 Of Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Is No Bar For Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 66 Of The Code: NCLAT Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Singh Nain & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 425 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice N Satyanarayana Murthy and Mr. Barun Mitra held that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not a bar for initiation of proceedings against the resolution professional of a company undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 66 of the Code. NCLAT held that Section 14 and Section 66 are independent provisions incorporated for different purposes and therefore, these provisions have to be read independently to achieve the objective of the Code. Certified Copy Preparation Period Can Be Excluded For Limitation Under Section 61 Of The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016: NCLAT DELHICase Title: Chhote Lal Gupta v Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Ltd. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 955 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra recently held that the time taken for preparation of the certified copy of the order/judgment will be excluded for computation of limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. "The Appellant is entitled to exclude the period for which certified copy was under preparation. Certified Copy was applied on 08th June, 2022 and delivered on 09th June, 2022 hence two days period is entitled to be excluded in computing the limitation". NCLT Can Reject The Resolution Plan Due To Non Serious & Casual Conduct Of Resolution Applicant: NCLAT Case Detail: Cimco Projects v Anup Kumar Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M Satyanarayana murthy, Mr Barun Mitra held that non serious and casual conduct of a resolution applicant is a sufficient ground to reject the resolution plan filed by such resolution applicant and approved by the committee of creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT further held that NCLT rightly dismissed the plan approval application as the Successful Resolution Applicant has not shown any willingness to proceed with the Resolution Plan. The CIRP is a time bound period and the same cannot be continued for indefinite period. Only Creditors Who Triggered Insolvency Resolution Process Can Be Impleaded As A Party: NCLAT ChennaiCase Title: V. Venkata Sivakumar v IDBI Bank Ltd. Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 269 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Chennai Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") has no provision to implead creditors other than the ones which triggered the insolvency resolution process. The Bench observed that to array a person as a `prospective / proposed Respondent(s)' is not a `Substantive Right', but undoubtedly, it is one of the `procedure' and the Tribunal is to exercise its judicial discretion, of course, in ...

IBC Cases Weekly Round-Up: 15 August To 21 August 2022

Pallavi Mishra

Tags