Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 13th To 19th May 2024

NCLAT NCLAT Delhi Evokes Doctrine Of 'Approbate & Reprobate', Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Cost On Creditor, Allowing Action For Contempt Case Title: Premjayanti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 124 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) evokes the Doctrine of 'Approbrate and Reprobrate' imposing a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh with allowing appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. NCLAT Delhi: Loan Recall Notice Date Shall Not Constitute Relevant Date Of Default Under IBC, Partial Payments Cannot Absolve CD From Default Status Case Title: Milind Kashiram Jadhav vs State Bank of India Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1589 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that part payments between the Non-Performing Asset (“NPA”) classification and loan recall notice cannot mean that loan recall notice shall constitute the relevant date of default under the IBC. Further, partial payments on the part of the Corporate Debtor cannot absolve it from default status. NCLAT Delhi: Relevant Date To Determine Ineligibility To Submit Resolution Plan Is Date Of Submission Of Plan By Resolution Applicant Case Title: Namdev Hindurao Patil vs. Virendra Kumar Jain, Liquidator, Warana Dairy and Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors. Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 858 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2925 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) held that the relevant date to determine the ineligibility to submit a Resolution Plan is on the date on which the Resolution Plan was first submitted by the Resolution Applicant. NCLAT Delhi: Absence Of GST Refund/ITC Claim In Demand Notice Or Form 5 By OC Can't Become Ground Of Default For CIRP U/S 9 Of IBC Case Title: R.B. Singh and Anr. vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. and Anr. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1187 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that if no Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) refund/ Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) claim has been included in the Demand Notice under Section 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) or in Form 5 by the Operational Creditor, the same cannot become a ground of default on which Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under IBC can be initiated. Decision Taken By New Resolution Professional Cannot Be Objected By Erstwhile Resolution Professional: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.576 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Members), in Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India & Ors. has held that the decision taken by New Resolution Professional cannot be objected by the Erstwhile Resolution Professional after replacement who is now proceeding with the CIRP. NCLAT Delhi: Adjudicating Authority Can Extend Payment Timelines Under Resolution Plan Without Express Concurrence Of CoC Case Title: Ashok Dattatray Atre and Ors. vs. State Bank of India and Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 221 and 222 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the Adjudicating Authority can extend payment timelines under the Resolution Plan without the express concurrence of the Committee of Creditors ('CoC'). When Claims And Counter Claims Are Involved, Liquidator Cannot Decide The Same: NCLAT Chennai Case Title: M/s. FLSmidth Private Limited vs Lanco Infratech Ltd Case No.: TA (AT) No.207/2021 (CA (AT) (Ins) No.1353/2019) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Chennai Bench, comprising Shri Justice Venugopal M. (Judicial Member) and Shri Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) in M/s. FLSmidth Private Limited vs Lanco Infratech Ltd. has held that when claim and counter-claims are involved Liquidator cannot decide the same. NCLAT Delhi: Dispute On Contractual Conditions Concerning Place Of Delivery And Obligation Towards Transport...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 13th To 19th May 2024

Sachika Vij

Tags