Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 1st To 7th April 2024

NCLAT Besides Section 27, RP Can Be Replaced On A Finding Given By NCLT Over His Conduct Or Any Proven Fact: NCLAT Delhi Case title: Katra Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, RP of Ansal Urban Condominiums Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 382 of 2024. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), has held that an application filed for replacement of Resolution Professional, which is not filed under Section 27 of IBC, can be entertained when NCLT has given a finding on the conduct of Resolution Professional or in presence of any proven fact. The NCLAT upheld the rejection of an application filed by a minority shareholder of the Corporate Debtor seeking replacement of Resolution Professional over mere allegations. NCLAT Delhi Rejects Homebuyers Application To Initiate CIRP Proceeding Against Ansal Hi-Tech Township Case: Pankaj Mehta VS M/s. Ansal Hi-tech Township Limited Citation: Comp. App (AT) (INS) No. 248 / 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi, comprising Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has rejected an application filed by homebuyers under Section 7 of IBC seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Ansal Hi-Tech Township. The Homebuyers had purchased flats in the Sushant Metropolis Township project being developed by Ansal Hi-Tech Township in NOIDA. NCLAT held that homebuyers are from numerous different projects, and they have not established their case as creditors of a class concerning any particular project registered with RERA to fulfil the requirement of 10% or 100 homebuyers, as stipulated under Section 7(1) of IBC. NCLAT Delhi: New Resolution Applicants Aren't Entitled To Participate In CIRP And Submit Resolution Plan To NCLT Without Issuance Of Fresh Form G Case Title: Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mamta Binani (RP of Rolta India Ltd.) and Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 464 of 2024 Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that new Resolution Applicants are not entitled to submit applications to the Adjudicating Authority to participate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') and submit a Resolution Plan, when a fresh Form G hasn't been issued under Regulation 36A (1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations 2016”). NCLAT Delhi: RP Can Always Ask For Additional Information From Creditors To Substantiate The Claim And Exercise Due Diligence Case Title: Mr. Umesh Kumar vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, IRP of Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 100 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held the Resolution Professional can always ask for additional information from creditors to substantiate the claim and exercise due diligence. NCLAT Delhi: Interveners Do Not Have The Right To Seek Relief For Themselves Before The Adjudicating Authority Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 548 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2643, 3702 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the interveners in a case do not have the right to seek relief for themselves before the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT observed that interveners are expected to either support the challenged order or the appellant. The individuals who submit their claims to the Insolvency Resolution Professional and whose claims are documented have the complete right to approach the Successful Resolution Applicant or the Monitoring and Implementation Committee. They are entitled to pursue their entitlements according to the provisions outlined in the Resolution Plan. NCLAT Delhi: Examining The Validity Of Any Contractual Agreement Is Beyond The Scope Of Powers Of RP Case Title: Mr. Umesh Kumar vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, IRP of Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 100 of 2024 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 the examining the validity/sustainability of any contractual agreement including its formatting, etc lies outside the purview of the charter of duties and...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 1st To 7th April 2024

Pallavi Mishra

Tags