Once Claims Are Received By Investors Under Settlement Agreement, They Are Prohibited From Claiming Same Amount Under Resolution Plan: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that once an investor of the Corporate Debtor has received an amount under the Settlement Agreement and has given an unconditional undertaking to forgo all claims under the Resolution Plan, they are barred from claiming the same amount under the Resolution Plan, as such dual recovery is impermissible. The present appeal has been filed...

Once CoC Agrees To Release Personal Guarantees Upon Payment, Invocation Cannot Be Directed By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), has held that if CoC has itself agreed to release the personal guarantees upon completion of payment under the Resolution Plan, no directions can be issued to invoke such guarantees. Brief Background The appeal was filed challenging the observations made in paragraphs 28 & 39 of the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the...

Approved Resolution Plan Can't Be Set Aside Merely Due To Dissenting Financial Creditor's Dissatisfaction With Asset Valuation: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that approval of a resolution plan cannot be interfered with merely on the grievance of a single financial creditor regarding improper asset valuation of the corporate debtor, when the valuer has, in fact, duly considered all assets and submitted its report. The present two appeals have been filed against two orders passed by the National Company...

Litigants Can't Be Forced To Argue On Merits When They Did Not File Reply To RP's Report U/S 99 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 when a litigant has not filed a reply to the Resolution Professional's report submitted under Section 99 of the IBC, due to sufficiently explained causes, requiring them to argue on merits would be premature and unjustified. The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi by...

[Byju's Insolvency] No Adjudicatory Power Under IBC To Reconstitute CoC Or “Provisional Constitution” Of CoC: NCLAT, Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that a Resolution Professional has no adjudicatory power under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Once the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) is constituted, the Resolution Professional cannot reconstitute the CoC on his own accord. The scope of updating claims is limited only to determination of quantum and...

Power Of Attorney Can Be Executed By Officers Nominated By Designation, Not Necessarily By Name: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice N. Seshasayee (Member – Judicial) and Arun Baroka (Member – Technical), has held that a power of attorney (POA) executed by bank officers nominated by their designation, rather than by name, is legally valid for instituting proceedings under the IBC, 2016. Background of the Case The appeal was filed against the decision of the adjudicating authority, by which it had dismissed the appellant's...

CoC Has Discretion To Allow Resolution Applicant To Submit Revised Plan If Its Name Appears In Final Resolution Applicant List: 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 committee of creditors (CoC) has discretion to allow the Resolution Applicant to submit a revised plan to maximise the value of the corporate debtor's assets if the Resolution Applicant's name appears in the final RA list. The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai. By the ...

Approval Of Resolution Plan Can't Be Interfered With Over 'NIL' Payment To Operational Creditors If Claims Have Been Properly Dealt With: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that since current legislative scheme does not mandate payment to Operational Creditors in event of the corporate debtor's liquidation, the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the Resolution Plan approved by Committee of Creditors with 100% voting shares and in which the claims of the Operational Creditors have been properly dealt with. ...

In Absence Of Crystallised Debt Due To Dispute Over Quality Of Product Supplied, Petition U/S 9 Can't Be Admitted: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when debt is not crystallized due to repeated communication on Whatsapp between the parties over the quality of the product supplied by the Operational Creditor and the defects acknowledged by the Supplier, an application under section 9 of the IBC cannot be accepted. The present appeal has been filed under section 61 of the Insolvency and...

Required Percentage For Passing Resolution Must Be Calculated Based On Voting Shares Of All Creditors, Not Just Those Present & Voting: 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 required percentage of 66% as mandated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for passing a resolution by the Committee of Creditors cannot be counted merely based on voting shares of the creditors who are present and voting but voting shares of the all the creditors including absentees must be counted. The present two...

Ex-Parte Order Is Invalid Where Company Petition Is Renumbered After Restoration Without Informing Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a Company Petition is restored and assigned a different number, due to which the Corporate Debtor could not access the case and present its defence effectively, an ex-parte order cannot be passed in such circumstances. The Corporate Debtor should have been informed of the renumbering so it could present its defence. This appeal has been...

Limitation For Filing Application Under IBC Is Three Years If No Extension Is Sought, Even If Such Application Is Filed Based On Court's Decree: 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 time period for filing an application under the IBC remains three years, even if it is based on a court decree. It is not extended merely because the limitation period for executing the decree is 12 years. The present two appeals have been filed by the IDBI Bank against orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Indore by...