Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 29th July To 4th August 2024

High Court Stakeholders Can't Impose Penalties, Claim Dues From Corporate Debtor After Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court Case Title: OCL Iron and Steel Limited vs Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 862 Case No.: W.P.(C) 8316/2024 & CM APPLS. 34076/2024, 38159/2024 The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held once a resolution plan is accepted, the stakeholders cannot impose penalties or claim dues from the Corporate Debtor based on past liabilities. NCLAT Section 10 Shouldn't Be Exploited And Abused By Corporate Debtor, Application After SARFAESI Proceedings Invalid: NCLAT Principle Bench Case Title: M/s Agroha Paper Industries Private Limited vs Bank of Maharashtra Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1342 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the protective provisions of Section 10 of the IBC should not be exploited or abused by the Corporate Debtor to gain an unfair advantage. The bench noted that the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the bank begun well before the filing of the Section 10 application by the Corporate Debtor. Thus, it noted that the application under Section 10 was a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine effort for insolvency resolution. NCLT Computation Of Limitation Must Be From Date Of E-Filing Of Appeal: NCLAT Principle Bench Case Title: Innovators Cleantech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pasari Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: Interlocutory Application Nos. 1622 & 1623 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the computation of limitation for NCLAT purposes must be from the date of e-filing the appeal. NCLT Orders Liquidation Of Future Retail The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench ordered the liquidation of Future Retail Limited (FRL) marking the end of the company's long-standing presence in India's retail market. The decision was made by a bench comprising Judicial Member Kuldip Kumar Kareer and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan who held that the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) exceeded its maximum permissible period without any resolution plan being approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The order was passed on an application for liquidation filed by Vijaykumar Iyer the resolution professional appointed in July 2022 when the CIRP for FRL commenced. No Provision In IBC To Send Resolution Plan Back To CoC For Reconsideration: NCLT New Delhi Case Title: Punjab National Bank Vs Saraya Industries Ltd Case Number: IA 6058/2023 IN Company Petition No. (IB) – 2628/(ND)/2019 The National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member) has held that there is no provision in IBC allowing the Adjudicating Authority to send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration at the CoC's request. Further, the bench held that once a resolution plan is submitted to the Adjudicating Authority, its jurisdiction is very limited concerning the approval or rejection of the plan. Insufficiently Stamped Agreement Between Parties , Not A Ground To Dismiss CIRP Applications :NCLT Mumbai Case Title: In the matter of Q West Infrastructure Private Limited vs Starwort Engineers Private Limited Case Number: CP(IB)No. 229/MB/2024 The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench of Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Justice V.G Bisht (Judicial Member) has held that deficiencies in document stamping, as per the Stamp Act, cannot be used as a reason to dismiss an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Exchange Of Debit Notes And Pending MSME Reference Indicate Plausible Pre-Existing Dispute: NCLT New Delhi Case Title: Mayfair Biotech Pvt. Ltd Vs Good Value Chemicals Pvt. Ltd Case Number: C.P (IB)/215(ND)2020 The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has held that the exchange of debit notes and the pending MSME reference indicate a plausible pre-existing dispute. Therefore, the bench held that if the Corporate Debtor raises a plausible contention about a pre-existing dispute, which is not just a moonshine or feeble legal argument, it would suffice for the Adjudicating Authority to reject the application filed under Section 9 of the IBC. Liquidation Is Last Resort, Broader Public Interest In Resolving Corporate Insolvency Should Be Taken Into Account: NCLT Kolkata Case Title: UCO Bank vs Nandini Impex Pvt Ltd. Case Number: IA No. 795/(KB)/2024 in C.P. No. 1377/KB/2020 The National...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 29th July To 4th August 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags