Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 23rd To 29th October 2023

Supreme Court IBC| Time-Barred Recovery Certificate Can Be Segregated From Composite Claim Under Section 7: Supreme Court Case Title: Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914 The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath, has held that in a composite application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) based on several Recovery Certificates issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal, if any of the Recovery Certificate(s) is barred by limitation, then the same can be segregated from composite claim. However, as the decree (Recovery Certificate) would still be alive, it can be treated as a claim made in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in view of Public Announcement. In 2019, a composite application under Section 7 of IBC was filed based on three recovery certificates, one of which dated back to 2015 and was hence barred by limitation. “The application with respect to the two recovery certificates issued in the year 2017 is maintainable. In the event the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the CIRP could not lie so far as the recovery certificate of 2015 is concerned, as the decree would be still alive, the claim based on the said recovery certificate could be segregated from the composite claim and the Committee of Creditors shall, in that event, treat the sum reflected in the said recovery certificate as part of the claims made in pursuance of the public announcement. This direction we are issuing in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench held. NCLAT NCLAT New Delhi: Limitation To File Appeal Commences On The Order Pronouncement Date And Not When Aggrieved Party Becomes Aware Of Its Content Case Title: Raiyan Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unrivalled Projects Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has held that the Limitation for filing of the Appeal before NCLAT does not commence on the date when the Appellant became aware of the contents but it shall commence when the order was pronounced. NCLAT Chennai: Grounds Not Taken On Jurisdiction Before Cannot Be Contested Afresh On Appeal When The Parties Accepted The Jurisdiction In NCLT Case Title: Jitendra Virmani vs. MRO – Tek Reality Limited Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No.363/2019 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), Chennai Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the grounds not taken on jurisdiction before the NCLT, cannot be contested afresh in appeal as the parties have exercised acquiescence and accepted the jurisdiction of the NCLT. NCLAT New Delhi: Liquidator Must Follow Clause 12 Of Schedule 1 Of Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, And Not Lay Its Owns Terms And Conditions In The EOI For Period Of Payment Of Balance Sale Consideration Case Title: Vinod Kumar Kothari Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs. Sneha Techno Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: Company App. (AT) (Ins) No. 316 of 2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the Liquidator is required to follow the terms and conditions of Clause 12 of Schedule 1 of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, and cannot lay down its own terms and conditions in the EOI regarding the period for payment of balance sale consideration. NCLAT Chennai: Shareholders Cannot Take Decisions For The Company’s Business Or Hold Negotiations With Parties Case Title: Jitendra Virmani vs. MRO – Tek Reality Limited Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No.363/2019 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), Chennai Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the Board of Directors have the onus to take decisions for the Company’s business or negotiations with the parties concerned and not the shareholders of the company. NCLAT Chennai: Threshold To Maintain Oppression Proceedings Not Limited To Holding Of Shares Alone But Extends To Manner Of Acquiring Of Shares Case Title: Jitendra Virmani vs. MRO – Tek Reality Limited Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No.363/2019 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), Chennai Bench comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the threshold to maintain oppression proceedings is not only limited to the holding of shares alone but also...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: 23rd To 29th October 2023

Pallavi Mishra

Tags