Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: August 2023

Supreme Court EPFO Employees Must Comply With IBC Timeline For Filing Claims; Default Officers Must Face Action: Supreme Court Case Title: Employees Provident Fund Organization V. Fanendra Harakchand Munot Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734 | CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SV Bhatti, has held that the Commissioner and employees of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) must ensure that they comply with the timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Apex Court also stated that in case of failure to comply with the timelines, action must be taken against erring employees. "..we are of the view that the Commissioner and employees of the EPFO must take steps to ensure that there is compliance with the timelines provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Failure may have legal consequences. The employees of the EPFO must be aware of the consequences in order to ensure compliance. In case there is dereliction of duty, action should be taken against erring employees in accordance with law." NCLAT NCLAT Delhi Upholds Reduction Of Resolution Professional’s Fee By NCLT Case Title: Rohit J. Vora v Religare Finvest Ltd. & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 104 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has upheld the NCLT order whereby the fee of the Resolution Professional was reduced from Rs. 3.75 Lakhs + GST to Rs. 1 Lakh + GST. The Bench observed that there was deficiency in the Resolution Professional’s performance, such as failure to publish Form G, invite Expression of Interest and to obtain any successful resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor within 180 days from the initiation of CIRP. “Given the material on record and the facts and circumstances in the present matter, we are therefore inclined to agree with the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the active CIRP period having expired with no substantial work to be taken up further and the Covid pandemic also having generally disrupted work, the scaling down of the fees to Rs 1 lakh was not discriminatory or unfair.” Differential Payments Can Be Made To Assenting And Dissenting Unsecured Financial Creditors: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: Peter Beck and Partner Vermoegensverwaltung GMBH v Sharon Bio-medicine Limited & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 912 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that differential payments can be made between the unsecured Financial Creditors who voted in favour of the plan and the ones who voted against it. The Bench ruled that, “we are of the view that assenting financial creditors entitled for payment as proposed in the plan and dissenting financial creditor is entitled as per the minimum entitlement as per Section 30(2)(b).” Go Airlines | NCLAT Delhi Permits Lessor To Conduct Inspection Of Leased Aircraft Engines Case Title: Engine Lease Finance B.V. v Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1088 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal filed in Engine Lease Finance B.V. v Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. & Anr., has permitted the lessor of aircraft engines of Go Airlines to conduct inspection of the leased engines. “We are of the view that inspection be permitted within 10 days from today. As observed above, the observations made in the impugned order being at prima facie stage need not be treated as final expression of opinion by the Adjudicating Authority and all contention of both the parties are left open.” NCLAT Chennai Reprimands Bank For Filing Appeal With Delay, Refuses To Condone Case Title: DCB Bank Limited v Ramakrishnan Sadasivam & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 207/2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has reprimanded the conduct of a Bank which filed an appeal exactly on the 45th day, despite having huge machinery at its disposal to prepare and file the appeal within statutory period of 30 days. “Looking from any another angle, even if it is taken then that the appeal has been filed on 15th day of the extended period of 15 days even then there is no sufficient cause assigned by the Appellant as to why it had taken exactly 45 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 03.03.2022. ...

Monthly Digest Of IBC Cases: August 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags