Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: June 2022

NCLAT Belated Claims Of Homebuyers, If Reflected In The Records Of Corporate Debtor Shall Be Included In Information Memorandum By Resolution Professional: NCLAT Case Title: Puneet Kaur v K V Developers Private Limited Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 390 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Ms. Shreesha Merla, Mr. Naresh Salecha, has held that the claims of those homebuyers who could not file their claims within stipulated time but the same were reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor ought to have been included in the information memorandum and the Resolution Applicant ought to have been take note of the same and deal with the in the Resolution Plan. It was observed that non-consideration of such claims, which are reflected from the record, leads to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case. NCLAT directed the Resolution Professional to submit the details of homebuyers whose details are reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor to the Successful Resolution Applicant, and the latter shall prepare an addendum to resolution plan which may be placed before the COC for consideration. The exercise is to be completed within a period of three months. NCLAT Stays Insolvency Proceedings Against RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Case Title: Daiichi Sankyo Ltd. v Religare Comtrade Ltd. & Ors Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 645 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Naresh Salecha, has stayed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of RHC Holdings Pvt Ltd. initiated by NCLT New Delhi on 13.05.2022. RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (RHC) is the company through which Singh Brothers namely Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh sold Ranbaxy India to Daiichi Sankyo. Daiichi Sankyo had filed an appeal before the NCLAT against the Order dated 13.05.2022, wherein NCLT had admitted the petition filed by Religare Comtrade Ltd. under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In fact, Religare had filed 23 petitions against various related entities of RHC under Section 7 of IBC to defeat the claim of Daiichi. NCLAT noted that the Supreme Court vide its order dated 05.04.2019 had stayed 23 petitions filed by Religare, and in furtherance of Supreme Court order NCLT itself stayed all proceedings on 11.04.2019. NCLAT stayed the CIRP initiated against RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd. accordingly. NCLAT Stays The Constitution Of COC In The CIRP Of Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. Case Title: Prashant Agarwal v Vikash Parasprampuria Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 690 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shri Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member), has stayed the constitution of the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. The Respondent, Vikash Parasprampuria, has proposed settlement by submitting that it would be satisfied if Bombay Rayon pays the principal amount alongwith the CIRP cost towards settlement. Bombay Rayon is yet to seek instructions on the settlement proposal. The Bench has stayed the constitution of CoC in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, while the CIRP process would otherwise continue. The matter has been next listed on 07.07.2022 for the Appellant to accept or reject the settlement proposal of the Respondent. The order was passed on 15.06.2022. NCLT Has Power To Recall Its Order: NCLAT Case Title: Printland Digital (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Nirmal Trading Company Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 504 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Alok Srivastva (Technical Member) recently held that the National Company Law Tribunal has the power to recall its order of closing the right to file reply. It was observed that there is a difference between recalling an order and review of an order where an issue is decided on merit by the Tribunal. "No doubt that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order after deciding a substantial issue but it has the jurisdiction to recall the order of the kind in dispute i.e., where the right to Reply was closed by an order on the ground that the opportunities granted were not availed." The order was passed on 30.05.2022. NCLAT Terminates The CIRP Of Kanoria Sugar & General Manufacturing Co. Ltd., As Parties Enter Settlement Case Title: Kanoria Sugar and General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v Punjab National Bank Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 548 of 2022. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok ...

Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: June 2022

Pallavi Mishra

Tags