Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 19th February To 3rd March 2024

NCLAT Voting For Section 12A Proposal To Be Computed As Per Proviso To Section 25A(3A) R/w Section 25A(3) Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi Case title: Vijay Saini v Shri Devender Singh & Ors Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1194 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that for computing voting with regard to proposal under Section 12A of IBC, the voting has to be computed as per proviso to Section 25A(3A) read with Section 25A(3) of IBC. It has been further clarified that a proposal under Section 12A which statutorily requires 90% votes for approval, would not stand approved if majority (more than 50%) homebuyers/financial creditors vote in favour of it. The threshold of 90% votes must be met for approval of proposal. Section 25A(3) of IBC provides that when the Authorised Representative represents several financial creditors, then he shall cast his vote for each financial creditor according to the instructions received from each financial creditor, to the extent of his voting share. The Proviso to Section 25A(3A) of IBC states that when voting takes place in respect of proposal under Section 12A, then the Authorised Representative of Financial Creditor shall cast his vote in accordance with Section 25A(3). “When the statute i.e. Section 12A provides 90% voting for approval of Section 12A proposal, 90% of the voting share of the creditor in class have to be taken into consideration. Since voting by each homebuyers who represented creditor in class has to be computed as per his voting share and adding all vote shares of the creditor in class with any other Financial Creditor if it is at least up to 90% only then 12A proposal is held to be passed”, the Bench held. NCLAT Delhi: NCLT Has Jurisdiction To Decide The Issue Of Trademark U/S 60(5)(c) Of IBC Case Title: Gloster Cables Ltd. vs. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. and Ors. Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 1343 of 2019 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that NCLT has the jurisdiction to decide the whether Trademark forms part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC. NCLAT Delhi: Liquidator Can Pursue Writ Petition On Behalf Of Corporate Debtor When NCLT Has Allowed Liquidator To Prosecute As Per Sec. 33(5) Of IBC Case Title: CA Rajeev Bansal Liquidator of Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1653 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the Liquidator can pursue a Writ Petition on behalf of the Corporate Debtor when the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Liquidator to prosecute on behalf of the Corporate Debtor as per Section 33(5) of IBC. NCLT NCLT Kolkata: Corporate Debtor Can't Take Shelter U/S 186 Of Companies Act To Avoid CIRP When Loan Has Been Advanced In Breach Of Section 186(2) Of Companies Act Case Title: EDCL Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Urban Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Company Petition (IB) No. 106/KB/2023 The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Smt. Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri D. Arvind (Technical Member) held that the Corporate Debtor cannot take shelter under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013 to avoid Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Section 7 of IBC, wherein the Financial Creditor has advanced loan in breach of Section 186(2) to the Corporate Debtor. The Bench observed that the said provision serves as a safeguard for the shareholders/stakeholders of the Company, presently the Financial Creditor, ensuring that those managing the company cannot and do not exceed prescribed loan limits which would be in excess of their capacity and could lead the company into significant trouble in case of default. Thus, Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013, mandates that if a company intends to provide a loan beyond the specified limits, it requires approval from shareholders through a special resolution. In the event of a violation under Section 186(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the affected parties would include the shareholders/stakeholders of the Financial Creditor and regulatory authorities. The Corporate Debtor cannot use such violations as a defense to refuse repayment of borrowed funds. IBBI IBBI Directs Resolution Professionals To Provide Copy Of Report Prepared Under Section 99 Of IBC To Creditors & Debtor Ref. No. IBBI/II/66/2024 The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has issued a ...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 19th February To 3rd March 2024

Pallavi Mishra

Tags