Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 8 May To 14 May 2023

Supreme Court IBC | Date Of Order Pronouncement & Time Taken To Provide Certified Copy Excluded From Limitation Period For Appeal To NCLAT: Supreme Court Case Title: Sanket Kumar Agarwal & Anr v APG Logistics Private Limited Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406 The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala, has held that for the purpose of computing limitation for filing of appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the time taken by Tribunal for providing certified copy of order to be challenged ought to be excluded from computation of limitation. Further, the date on which the order was pronounced must be excluded while computing limitation for filing of appeal against such order. Accordingly, the Bench has set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), wherein NCLAT had erroneously included the date of order pronouncement in limitation period and dismissed the appeal for being barred by limitation. IBC | NCLT Has To Admit Sec 7 Petition If Debt Is Due; Decision In 'Vidarbha Industries' Based On Its Facts: Supreme Court Case Title: M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, has held that if the existence of a financial debt and its default on the part of Corporate Debtor has been proved, then the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) is left with no option apart from admitting the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The only ground on which a petition under Section 7 of IBC can be rejected is when the debt in question has not become due and payable(M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank & Ors.). Further, the decision in Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 407, still holds good and the NCLT must admit a petition under Section 7 of IBC once existence of debt and default is established. The decision in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587, was passed based on the facts of that particular case and it did not hold anything contrary to the Innoventive Industries judgment. NCLAT Allegation That IRP/RP Did Not Conduct CIRP As Per Law, Not A Ground To Challenge Resolution Plan: NCLAT Delhi Case Title: Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya v Pinakin Shah Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 456 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the order approving the Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with on a mere allegation that the IRP or the Resolution Professional has not conducted the CIRP in accordance with law. NCLT NCLT Mumbai Initiates Insolvency Process Against Future Lifestyle Fashions, A Future Group Enterprise Case Title: Bank of India v Future Lifestyle Fashions Limited Case No.: CP No. (IB) 959/ MB/ 2022 The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member) and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd., which is a Future Group enterprise promoted by Mr. Kishore Biyani. Further, Mr. Ravi Sethia has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”). NCLT Chennai Order Dissolution Of M/s Boss Profiles Limited Under Section 54 Of IBC Case Title: M/s Boss Profiles Limited Case No.: TCP/126/IB/2017 The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chennai Bench, has ordered for dissolution of M/s Boss Profiles Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) under section 54 of IBC on a petition filed by the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. E-auctions were conducted, however, there was no bidder paid the advance amount and the bid application. So the assets of the Corporate Debtor were sold via private sale of assets for a price of 9.75 crores. The Liquidation amount was distributed amongst the Secured Financial Creditors in the order of priority given under Section 53 of IBC. Flats Sold After Completion Of Construction To Be Included In Computation Of Threshold Limit Under Section 7, IBC: NCLT New Delhi Reiterates Case Title: Uttam Singhal & Ors vs M/s Anushree Home Developers Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: IB-762/ND/2020 The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri P.S.N Prasad (Judicial Member) and Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member), has reiterated that the persons to who flats have already been sold after completing the construction would still be allottees and would be included for computation of threshold limit of Section 7 of IBC. Claim Of Compensation Cannot Become Part Of...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 8 May To 14 May 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags