Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: January 2023

Supreme Court “Inappropriate, Almost Bordering On Contempt”: SC Deprecates NCLAT Order Impeding Implementation Of SC Order Case Title: Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v Iirf India Realty Xii Ltd. & Ors. Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9062/2022 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka while adjudicating an appeal has set aside a status quo order passed by NCLAT Delhi which impeded the implementation of an order passed by the Supreme Court. The Bench has deprecated the NCLAT order while observing that the same is inappropriate and almost bordering on contempt. “We fail to appreciate how a status quo order could have been passed by a Bench of the NCLAT seeking to impede the implementation of the order of this Court. If there was a grievance about the implementation of the order of the Court, only this Court could have got into it. We consider the conduct of the Bench not only inappropriate but almost bordering on contempt. We strongly deprecate the order passed by the NCLAT Bench. We thus, set aside the order of status quo in those proceedings and insofar as that appeal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (INS.) No.1472/2020, is concerned, the same be placed before a Bench presided over by the Chairman.” Borrowers Enter OTS ; Supreme Court Directs Bank To Re-Consider Decision Of Wilful Default Case Title: Orbitz Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Bank Of Baroda & Anr. Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15751/2022 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, has directed the Bank to re-consider its decision of declaring the Borrowers (Petitioners) as wilful defaulters in light of changed circumstances, as the Bank had subsequently entered into One Time Settlement (OTS) with the Borrowers. The Borrowers have been making payments towards the OTS. The Bench has also granted liberty to the Borrowers to avail legal remedy if the Bank’s decision on their representation is not favourable to them. Sabka Vishwas Scheme: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC Moratorium Case Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15, CA 8957 OF 2022 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices M R Shah and Justice B V Nagarathna has remarked that “No one can be expected to do the impossible” while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium under IBC being imposed on it. "The appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do. There was a legal impediment in the way of the appellant to make any payment during the moratorium. Even if the appellant wanted to deposit settlement amount within the stipulated period, it could not do so in view of the bar under the IBC as, during the moratorium, no payment could have been made. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot be rendered remediless and should not be made to suffer due to a legal impediment which was the reason for it and/or not doing the act within the prescribed time." Allowing the appeal, the court directed that the payment of Rs.1,24,28,500/- already deposited by the appellant be appropriated towards settlement dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019” and the appellant be issued discharge certificate. IBC - Delay In Filing CIRP Application Condonable On Sufficient Reasons: Supreme Court Case Title: Sabarmati Gas Limited v Shah Alloys Limited Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9, CA 1669 of 2020 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Justice C T Ravikumar has held that delay in initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is condonable on sufficient grounds. "When the limitation period for initiating CIRP under Section 9, IBC is to be reckoned from the date of default, as opposed to the date of commencement of IBC and the period prescribed therefor, is three years as provided by Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same would commence from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim for condonation of the delay when once the proceeding concerned is found filed beyond the period of limitation..As relates Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing ‘sufficient cause’ is the only criterion for condoning delay. ‘Sufficient Cause’ is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. NCLAT AA Empowered To Direct Tenant To Vacate Premises Of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: M/s. Jhanvi Rajpal Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v R.P. of Rajpal Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1417 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate...

Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: January 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags