Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 18th To 24th September 2023

NCLAT Resolution Professional Not Obligated To Share All Information With Shareholders Of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: M/s Dauphin Cables Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Praveen Bansal Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 971, 972 & 973 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 IBC provisions do not indicate that all information collected by the Resolution Professional is required to be shared with Shareholders of the Corporate Debtor upon their request. The Bench upheld the NCLT order whereby Resolution Professional was permitted to submit documents in a sealed cover before the NCLT. Rule 43 Of NCLT Rules | NCLT Can Call For Information/Evidence From Parties Including Resolution Professional: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: M/s Dauphin Cables Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Praveen Bansal Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 971, 972 & 973 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 under Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the NCLT is empowered to call information or evidence from the parties, including the Resolution Professional. “The Adjudicating Authority is thus fully empowered for calling information or evidence from the parties. The power under Rule 43 shall also encompass power to call information from Resolution Professional.” IBC Not A Debt Recovery Mechanism, NCLAT Chennai Reiterates Case Title: Mr. Maulik Kirtibhai Shah vs. United Telecom Limited. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 268/2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that IBC is not a ‘recovery mechanism’. Moreover, the definition of ‘Operational Debt’ cannot be widely interpreted to include any agreement between the parties that does not specifically pertain to the supply of goods or services as such an interpretation would undermine the purpose and scope of the Code. NCLAT New Delhi: Time Taken For Restoration And Withdrawal Can’t Be Excluded, Delay Beyond Condonable Limit Case Title: Harish Kumar vs. Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 348 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra Dash (Technical Member), dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 61 of IBC against the order by which petition under Section 7 of IBC has been rendered non-maintainable. The Tribunal held that the period of delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of IBC, from the date of restoration application to the date on which it was disposed of as withdrawn cannot be excluded by giving the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. NCLAT New Delhi: CIRP Cannot Be Initiated For Defaults During The Excluded Timeline Under Section 10A Of IBC Case Title: Vikram Kumar vs. Aranca (Mumbai) Private Limited. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 836 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), has declined to that default falls within the excluded period specified in Section 10-A of IBC as the Notice for invoking the Bank Guarantee addressed to the Corporate Guarantor was issued on 25.08.2020. CIRP cannot be initiated for defaults that occurred within a 12-month period starting from 25.03.2020. NCLT KYC And Aadhaar Related Service Provider ‘Karvy Data Management Services Ltd.’ Admitted Into Insolvency: NCLT Hyderabad Case Title: M/s Allied Hi-Tech Industries Private Ltd. v Karvy Data Management Services Limited Case No.: CP (IB) No.25/7/HDB/2022 The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Karvy Data Management Services Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). Shri Kranthi Kumar Kedari has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”). The Corporate Debtor is a KYC Registration Agency (KRA) under Regulation 7 of SEBI KYC Regulations, 2011 and engaged in the business of providing Know Your Customer (KYC) services, Aadhaar services, TIN services etc. NCLT Mumbai: Petition Under Section 9 Cannot Be Filed Only For Recovery Of Interest Component Case Title: TCL Cables Private Limited vs. Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Limited Case No.: CP (IB)...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 18th To 24th September 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags