Weekly Update Of IBC Cases: 20 To 26 March 2023

Supreme Court IBC- Once Resolution Plan Is Approved, No Modifications Are Permissible: Supreme Court Case Title: SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v Deccan Chronicle Marketeers & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held that the declaration made by the NCLT to the effect that the trademarks “Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi”, which originally belonged to Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. (“DCHL/Corporate Debtor”), continues to be under the ownership of DCHL post the approval of resolution plan, would amount to impermissible modification of resolution plan as the same was silent on this aspect. The Bench upheld the NCLAT order wherein it was held that any right or ownership claimed after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC stands extinguished and accordingly the Successful Resolution Applicant could only use the Corporate Debtor’s existing trademarks without financial implication, but such trademarks could no longer be considered under ownership of the Corporate Debtor. NCLAT Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant Has No Locus Standi To Challenge The Approved Resolution Plan: NCLAT Chennai Case Title: M.K. Rajagopalan v S. Rajendran & Anr. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 58 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) has held that an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has no locus standi to assail a Resolution Plan or its implementation since it is not a stakeholder as per Section 31(1) of IBC. NCLT Residuary Jurisdiction Of NCLT U/S 60(5)(c) of IBC, Can't Be Used To Interpret Terms Of An Agreement Relating To A Third-Party Contract: NCLT Ahmedabad Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd vs JBF Petrochemicals Ltd. Case No. CP (IB) No. 232/NCLT/AHM/2018 The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B. Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), has held that NCLT has limited residuary jurisdiction under section 60(5)(c) of IBC and that it cannot interpret the terms of an agreement relating to a third-party contract. NCLT Shall Not Act As A Recovery Forum: NCLT Mumbai Case Title: Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Member Technical) has rejected the Application under Section 9 of IBC filed against Indian Oil Corporation Limited (‘IOCL’) by Satec Envir Engineering (India) Private Limited (‘SATEC’) on the ground that the tribunal cannot go into adjudication of dispute, whatsoever it may be, under IBC. NCLT made it clear that the Adjudicating Authority defined under IBC would not be an Adjudicator of disputed claims. Section 9 Petition Not Maintainable If Principal Amount Repaid During Pendency Of Petition: NCLT Bengaluru Reiterates Case: Ramesh Kumar Garg vs M/s Buildmet Pvt Ltd Case No.: CP (IB) No.109/BB/2021 The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Justice (Retd) T. Krishnavalli (Judicial Member) and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey (Technical Member), has reiterated that a Section 9 petition is not maintainable if the principal amount has been repaid during the pendency of the petition and only the interest component remains unpaid. The Tribunal relied on the NCLAT judgement of Rohit Motawat v. Madhu Sharma”, Comp. App.(AT) (Ins) No. 1152 of 2022 which ruled that a section 9 application regarding only the interest component is not maintainable as “the spirit of the legislation of the Code is for ‘resolution of debt’ and not for recovery”. Length Of Delay Immaterial, Reason Stated For Condonation Matter: NCLT Hyderabad Reiterates Case Title: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs Viceroy Hotels Limited Case No.: CP (IB) No. 219/7/HDB/2017 The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, comprising Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has held that the length of delay is immaterial, but the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay matter. Corporate Debtor being the Principal Employer covered under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, failed to make contributions under the Act. Due to this, the Applicant filed its claim before the Resolution Professional on 24.08.2022, which was rejected on the ground that the process of submission of the claims stood closed in 2018. The Tribunal observed that publications invited claims on or before 30.03.2018 and were in circulation in the area in which the office of the Applicant is situated. It was further held that the focus of the application was on the entitlement of...

Weekly Update Of IBC Cases: 20 To 26 March 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags