Guarantor's Liability Can't Be Restricted To Cap Prescribed Under Deed Of Guarantee On Principal Borrower's Liability: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the liability of the guarantor cannot be restricted to only the capped amount prescribed in respect of the principal borrower's liability, since the guarantor's liability to discharge repayment obligations upon invocation of the guarantee and the principal borrower's liability operate in separate spheres. The present appeal has been filed...

Issue Of Share Application Money As Financial Debt Once Decided In Earlier Proceedings Can't Be Reagitated In Subsequent Plea U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Once the issue of whether share application money amounts to a financial debt has been decided by the Adjudicating Authority in earlier proceedings, the same question cannot be agitated in a subsequent application filed under Section 7 of the IBC as such a plea is barred by Res-Judicata. The present appeal has been filed under section 61 of...

Adjudicating Authority Can Enforce Arbitral Award Upon Application By Resolution Professional U/S 60(5) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Technical), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Technical), and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that the adjudicating authority has jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC to entertain an IA filed by the Resolution Professional seeking enforcement of an arbitral award. Contention of the Appellant The appellant submitted that the...

When There Is More Than One Guarantor, Creditor Has Discretion To Proceed Against All Or Any One Of Them: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra has held that it is for the creditors to decide whether to proceed against all or any one of the personal guarantors when there are multiple guarantors. Therefore, an application under Section 95 of the IBC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the creditor chose to proceed against only one of the personal guarantors. The present appeal has been filed against an order...

Corporate Debtor Cannot File Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC In It's Own Name After Appointment Of Resolution Professional: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has held that a corporate debtor in its own name cannot file an appeal under section 61 of the IBC after initiation of CIRP and appointment of IRP. Background of the Case The present appeal was preferred by the corporate debtor, Dhara Cements (India) Pvt. Ltd., u/s...

NCLAT New Delhi Affirms CIRP Of M/S Revital Reality Private Limited (Group Company Of Supertech Limited)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), has affirmed the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Revital Reality Private Limited, under section 7 of the IBC, 2016. The bench ruled that the non-obtaining of an Occupation Certificate (OC) cannot be used as a defense when default arises from incomplete construction and failure to deliver possession...

Mere Allegations Of Fraud Can't Invalidate Auction When Unsuccessful Bidder Failed To Put In Bid Despite Opportunity: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that mere bald assertions or allegations of fraud cannot invalidate an otherwise valid auction, especially when the unsuccessful bidder was given ample opportunity to log in to the system but failed to place a valid bid. The present appeal has been filed under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against an order passed...

Additional Documents Need Not Be Filed With Reply To Demand Notice U/S 8(2) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that section 8 of the IBC doesn't allow placing on record any documents while responding to a demand notice, except the ones mentioned in sub-section 2. The appeal was filed challenging the impugned order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai. By the impugned order, the tribunal rejected the IA No. 3245 of 2025 filed by the ...

Unexplained Delay In Filing Second Petition U/S 94 Of IBC After Dismissal Of First Reflects Malafide Conduct Of Litigant: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that filing a second petition under Section 94 of the IBC, without disclosing that the earlier petition based on the same facts and cause of action had been dismissed, reflects mala fide conduct on the part of the litigant. Therefore, the second petition cannot be entertained unless sufficient explanation is ...

NCLT Can Grant Ex-Post Facto Approval To Criminal Complaints Filed Against Former Management With Adequate Reasons: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to grant ex-post facto approval of criminal complaints filed against the Ex-management by providing adequate reasons. The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by which it allowed an application filed by the Liquidator and gave ex-post facto...

Money Deposited By Borrower As Precondition For Sanction Of Guarantee Ceases To Be Corporate Debtor's Asset Upon Invocation Of Guarantees: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Margin Money deposited by the borrower as a precondition for sanction of Bank Guarantees, being payable towards the Bank Guarantees invoked by the beneficiary, ceases to be the Corporate Debtor's asset once such guarantees are invoked. Therefore, such appropriation of margin money is not hit by section 14 of the IBC. The present appeal has...

Claims Based On Guarantee Can Be Considered By RP Even If Guarantee Was Not Invoked Before Insolvency Commencement Date: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the claims of the creditor can be considered by the Resolution Professional even if guarantee based on which the claims were filed was not invoked. The present appeal has been filed under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against an order passed by National Company Law...