When Number Of Allottees Disputed, NCLT To Decide S.7(1) Compliance Prior To Admission: NCLAT Delhi

Case title: Parikshit Madanmohan Sharma v M.S. Gopikrishnan & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 206 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that when the total number of allottees in a real estate project is disputed, then the NCLT should first decide whether the Section 7 petition has been filed by minimum number of allottees prescribed under second proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC or not.

The Bench has set aside a NCLT order whereby insolvency proceedings were initiated against a real estate developer company, without deciding the issue pertaining to compliance of Section 7(1) of IBC.

NCLAT Delhi Terminates Insolvency Proceedings Against Asian Hotels (West) Ltd., Accepts Settlement Proposal By Promoters

Case Title: Sandeep Gupta v JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1192 & 1193 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has terminated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of Asian Hotels (West) Ltd., which was initiated by NCLT in September 2022. The Bench has accepted the Settlement Proposal submitted by Promoters and Suspended Directors of Asian Hotels (West), wherein 100% dues of Financial Creditors along with interest and 100% dues of the Operational Creditor, Government dues and dues of employees with entire CIRP cost has been proposed to be paid.

The Asian Hotels (West) Ltd. owns the five-star hotels namely Hotel Hyatt Regency Mumbai and JW Marriott, New Delhi Aerocity (through its subsidiary).

NCLAT Chennai: CoC's Commercial Wisdom Includes Approval Of Resolution Plan Below Liquidation Value

Case Title: Mr. Ramesh Kesavan vs. CA Jasin Jose, RP SD Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins.) No. 422 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the approval of the Resolution Plan below the Liquidation value is within the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors ('CoC') as the IBC does not expressly bar that the Resolution Plan value should be over and above the Liquidation value.

NCLAT Delhi: CIRP Against Financial Service Provider Is Not Maintainable Under IBC

Case Title: Globe Capital Market Ltd. vs. Narayan Securities Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.32 of 2024 & I.A No. 62 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT'), New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') application against the Financial Service Provider is not maintainable under IBC.

NCLAT Delhi: Ex-Promoter, Who Resigned Before CIRP Commencement, Is Eligible To Submit Resolution Plan

Case Title: Vishram Narayan Panchpor RP of Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. Committee of Creditors (Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd.) and Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1489 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that an Ex-Promoter/Director who resigned from Corporate Debtor before initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Section 10 of IBC is eligible to submit a Resolution Plan under Section 29A of IBC.

NCLT

NCLT Kolkata: Revival Of Corporate Debtor Is Primary Goal Of Resolution Plan And Going Concern Sale

Case Title: Universaltech Paper LLP vs. Mr. Krishnaswami CVR, Liquidator of Kohinoor Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: I.A. (I.B.C.) 1055/KB/2023 In CP(IB) No. 511/KB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kolkata, comprising Justice Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Mr. Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has held that the primary goal of Resolution Plan as well as the sale of a Corporate Debtor as a going concern remains the same i.e revival of the Corporate Debtor's business.

IBC | Settlement In Section 7 Or Dropping Of Sec. 66 Proceedings Does Not Automatically End Proceedings Under Section 43: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Reserve Bank of India v Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited

Case No.: COMPANY PETITION (IB) NO. 4258/MB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member), has held that the proceedings under Section 43 of IBC would not automatically end against a party, if the parties enter settlement in Section 7 of IBC proceedings or proceedings under Section 66 of IBC are dropped.

“We again wish to reiterate that merely because the Applicant has settled the matter with regard to the said loan does not ipso facto absolve it of the insinuations or allegations made in the application u/s 43 of the Code. We are further of the view that it would be untimely and inopportune to exonerate the Applicant of the allegations made against it in the said application which is yet to be heard and decided on merits. Besides, settlement with the Respondent in proceedings u/s 7 of the Code does not or cannot have the effect of drawing curtains over the proceedings u/s 43 of the Code which are altogether different and distinct.”

NCLT Indore: Insolvency Resolution Professional Can Continue To Function Till Appointment Of RP U/S 16(5) Of IBC

Case Title: Indian Bank vs. Indison Agro Foods Ltd.

Case No.: IA/166(MP)2023 & IA/253(MP)2023

The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Indore, comprising Shri P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member), held that the Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') can continue to function till the date of appointment of the Resolution Professional ('RP') as per the amended provisions of Section 16(5) of IBC.

HIGH COURT

S.204 IBC | Provision Of Twin Tier Control By IBBI And IPA By Itself Doesn't Give Rise To Presumption Of Double Jeopardy: Madras High Court

Case Title: CA V Venkata Sivakumar v The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 35

The Madras High Court while dismissing a challenge made to Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which gives powers to the Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA) to monitor the conduct of the Insolvency professional, observed that merely because the provision gave powers to both the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the IPA, it would not become arbitrary or give a presumption of double jeopardy.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conferment of powers to the IBBI and IPA by itself would not amount to conferring unbridled power as the regulation and bye-laws provided for checks and balances. Noting that there was no excessive power being granted, the court added that Section 204 of IBC was only an enabling provision and there was no constitutional infirmity in the provision.