Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 11th To 17th September 2023

Supreme Court IBC | Cannot Ask Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Arrears Payable By Corporate Debtor For Grant/Restoration Of Electricity Connection: Supreme Court Case Title: Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Limited & Anr. V Jagannath Sponge Private Limited Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 788 The Supreme Court has held that under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), once the Resolution Plan stands approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Electricity Department cannot demand payment of arrears, which were payable by the Corporate Debtor, from the Successful Resolution Applicant for restoration/grant of electricity connection. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti, has held that the ‘clean slate principle’ would stand negated if the Successful Resolution Applicant is asked to pay the arrears payable by the Corporate Debtor for the grant of an electricity connection in her/his name. IBC- Admitting Claims After Resolution Plan Has Been Accepted By COC Would Make CIRP An Endless Process: Supreme Court Case Title: M/S. RPS Infrastructure Ltd V. Mukul Kumar Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 | Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021 The Supreme Court Bench comprising bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, has held that admitting claims after the Resolution Plan has been accepted by the Committee of Creditors (COC) under IBC, even though the Adjudicating Authority has yet to approve the plan, would make the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) an endless process. The Court was considering whether the claim pertaining to an arbitral award, in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), could be admitted after the resolution plan had been approved by the COC. “We find it difficult to unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution applicant” the Apex Court said while dismissing the plea of the claimant. “The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel, [1 (2020) 8 SCC 534] the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.” NCLAT NCLAT New Delhi: Responsibility Lies On The Claimant To Provide Necessary Details To Substantiate Its Claim Case Title: Engineering Mazdoor Parishad Devas Through Its General Secretary vs. Teena Saraswat Pandey Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1200 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), dismissed an application seeking consideration and settling the claim of the Engineering Mazdoor Parishad Devas workers (Appellant) by the Resolution Professional (“RP”). Further, the Appellant has also challenged the order allowing the application for the approval of the Resolution Plan. The NCLAT held that it is the Claimant's responsibility to provide all necessary records to support their claim. The Appellate Tribunal pointed out that there were no documents submitted to substantiate the workmen's claim. NCLT Proceeded Ex-Parte Against CD On First Hearing After Notice, NCLAT Delhi Says Sufficient Opportunity Not Given As Per Rule 37(2) Of NCLT Rules Case title: Ami Ashutosh Majumdar v Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1492 of 2022 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has set aside an ex-parte order initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The NCLT had proceeded ex-parte against the Corporate Debtor on the first hearing held post issuance of notice and when the time period to file a Reply had not lapsed. The Bench held that the NCLT ought to have granted an opportunity to file Reply to the Corporate Debtor. “In view of the fact that notice by registry was received and served on 04.11.2022 which fact is not disputed, Adjudicating Authority ought to have given one more opportunity to file a reply. Proceeding ex-parte and reserving order is not giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant as contemplated by Rule 37 Sub Rule 2 of the NCLT Rule, 2016.” NCLAT Delhi: CIRP Can’t Be Modified On Project Basis On Request Of Financial Creditor When CIRP Is Against Company Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Resolution Professional of Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1000 of 2021 The National Company...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 11th To 17th September 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags