Threshold Limit Of Rs. 1 Crore Applicable From The Date Of Filing And Not From Date Of Registration Of Petition: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Royal Manpower Services v Faridabad Autocomp System Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 370 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member), has held the revised minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore is applicable from the date of filing of petition and not from the date of registration. The Bench revived a petition under Section 9 of IBC having a default lesser than Rs. 1 Crore, which was filed in 2019 but got registered in 2021. It has been observed that the subsequent registration of the petition will not change the date of filing.

S. 66 Of IBC: Fraud Includes A Debt Which Debtor Has No Intention To Repay: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Shri Baiju Trading and Investment Private Limited v Mr. Arihant Nenawati & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 699 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held under that ‘fraud’ for the purpose of Section 66 of IBC would consist of debts which the Debtor has no intention to repay or does not expect to be able to pay. Further, fraud may also happen by way of false representation, without there being any intention to pay back. The expression ‘any persons’ in Section 66 of IBC includes a knowing party to the carrying out of fraudulent transactions.

NCLT

NCLT Mumbai Bench Re-Constituted W.E.F 10th April 2023

File No.: 10/03/2022-NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has released a Circular dated 10.04.2023, notifying that the Bench of Court No. 1 in NCLT Mumbai has been re-constituted with effect from 10.04.2023.

The re-constituted NCLT Mumbai Bench shall comprise of:

NCLT Mumbai, Court Room No. 1 (First Half)

1. Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member)
2. Ms. Anju Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member)

NCLT New Delhi Rejects Section 9 Application For Initiation Of CIRP Against G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited

Case Title: Connecting People of India vs G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited.

Case No.: COMPANY PETITION IB (IBC)/ 89(ND)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench, comprising Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member) and Shri P.S.N. Prasad (Judicial Member), has rejected an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against G.S.P. Power Systems Private Limited. The Tribunal observed that the amount of default was Rs. 4,15,08,378.56 and the date of defaults were stated to be 05.11.2020 and 25.11.2020. Since the dates of default were after 25^th March 2020, the petition was barred by Section 10A of IBC, 2016.

NCLT Mumbai Rejects Section 9 Application For Initiation Of CIRP Against Elder Projects Limited

Case Title: Nanz Med Science Pharma Private Limited vs Elder Projects Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 245/MB/C-I/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench, comprising Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member) and Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member), has rejected an application under Section 9 of IBC seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Elder Projects Limited. The Bench observed that the date of default was beyond 25th March 2020 and the petition fell within the purview of Section 10A of IBC. Also, the Operational Creditor failed to mention the date of default in Part 4 of the Petition.

Entries Made In Balance Sheet Amounts To Acknowledgement Of Debt As Per Section 18 Of Limitation Act, 1963: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: M/s SKC Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs M/s EOS Hospitality Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: IB-356/(ND)/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial member) and Shri Rahul Bhatnagar (Technical Member), while adjudicating an application filed under Section 9 of IBC has reiterated that entries made in the Balance Sheet amounts to acknowledgement of debt as per section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.

Interest Bearing Refundable Advance Paid Under An MoU Which Has Lost Legal Force Can Still Be Categorized As Financial Debt: NCLT Ahmedabad

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Dr. Madan B Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has categorized an advance amount as Financial Debt which was paid under an Memorandum of Understanding with no legal force and which was refundable with an interest @ 18% p.a.

The Tribunal remarked that it is neither dwelling into whether the interest is payable or not as the MoU has no legal force, nor is it dwelling on whether the debt is secured or unsecured. It is only deciding on whether the said advance should be treated as operational debt or financial debt. The Tribunal has directed the IRP to consider the claims of the Applicants as Financial Debts.

Nature Of Decree Depends On The Nature Of Transaction From Which The Decretal Debt Has Arisen: NCLT Mumbai Reiterates

Case Title: Mr. J.K Shah and Anr vs Tridhaatu Builders LLP

Case No.:CP (IB) No.388/MB-IV/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has reiterated that nature of decree depends on the nature of transaction from which the decretal debt has arisen. The Tribunal refused to categorize the failure to return an amount advanced in lieu of a residential flat as “Operational Debt”.

NCLT Mumbai Order Dissolution Of Proterra Investment Advisors Private Limited Under Section 59 Of IBC

Case Title: Proterra Investment Advisors India Private Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) No.39/MB-IV/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member), has ordered for dissolution of Proterra Investment Advisors Private Limited (“Company”) under Section 59 of IBC. The Company was neither carrying any business and nor earning any profits. The Board of Directors of the Company resolved to voluntarily liquidate the Company and its two directors filed an affidavit stating that the Company neither has any debt nor was being liquidated to defraud any person. Accordingly, the Company moved a petition before NCLT through its Liquidator for initiation of voluntary liquidation proceedings.

HIGH COURT

Karnataka High Court Stays Insolvency Proceedings Against Mantri Developers Ltd

Case Title: Mr. Sushil Mantri v The Registrar (NCLT Bengaluru) & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 7706/2023

The High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Bench, comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has stayed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) initiated against Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru for a period of 3 weeks until NCLAT hears the appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. is a Mr. Sushil Mantri promoted company and a part of Mantri Group of Companies. It is engaged in the business of real estate development and has various residential, retail and hospitality projects in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Pune and Chennai.