Pre-Section 10A Default Is Not Extended By Acknowledgment When Partial Payment Is Made For Acknowledged Debt: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that the default falling in pre-section 10A period cannot be said to be continued when some payments towards the acknowledgement of debt accumulating during the prohibited period is made. Brief Facts: M/s Servomax Limited (Corporate Debtor) had issued various purchase orders to TVN Enterprises (Operational Creditor)...

Electricity Being Essential Supply Cannot Be Disconnected During CIRP Period As Per Section 14(2) Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that electricity being an essential supply cannot be disconnected during moratorium period under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) even if no payment is made for such such supply. The payment for such supply shall form part of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process...

Beneficiaries Of Personal Guarantee Can File Application U/S 95 Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that beneficiaries of personal guarantee can initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) against Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). Brief Facts: Piramal Finance Limited ("PFL") granted Loan Facility to Hema Engineering...

If Tribunal Is Closed On Last Day Of Filing Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC, That Day Shall Stand Excluded As Per Rule 3 Of NCLAT Rules: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when office of the Tribunal remains closed on the last day of filing an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the appeal can be filed on the day when the Tribunal reopens as per Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules. Brief Facts: The present appeals have been filed against an order passed by the...

Lone Homebuyer Can't Challenge Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that one lone homebuyer has to go with the majority decision of the homebuyers and cannot challenge the approval of Resolution Plan. He has to sail or sink with the majority decision. Brief Facts The Appellants, Jai Prakash Keswani (Promoter) and Harvinder Singh (Homebuyer) filed the appeals ...

Sale Of Corporate Debtor In Liquidation As Going Concern Beyond 90 Days Is Permissible Under Amended Regulation 32A(4) Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that the sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern in liquidation can be conducted even beyond 90 days under amended Regulation 32A(4) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016 (Regulations). After the amendment, the sale of the corporate debtor can be conducted in the first auction and the requirement that such sale has to...

Relief U/S 60(5) Of IBC Against Rejection Of Claims By Liquidator Cannot Be Sought When Remedy U/S 42 Is Not Exhausted: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that relief under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be claimed against rejection of claims by the liquidator when the remedy provided under section 42 of the code against such decision has not been resorted to. Brief Facts: The Corporate Debtor-M/s Varun...

Adjudicating Authority Can't Override CoC's Majority Decision On Extension Of CIRP Period At Instance Of Minority Dissenting Creditor: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have re-iterated that that liquidation of the Corporate Debtor should be the last resort. The Tribunal observed that when 95.01% of the CoC members, after considering all aspects, passed a resolution for a 60-day extension, the Adjudicating Authority could not have overturned this decision at the instance of...

Infusion Of Funds In Corporate Debtor With Intention Of Earning Profits Would Fall Within Definition Of Financial Debt: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Injecting funds in the Corporate Debtor with the objective of generating profits would be covered within the ambit of Financial Debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). It further held that such transactions have a commercial effect of borrowing. Brief Facts: The Appellant-Adhunik...

Submission & Approval Of Resolution Plan In Extended Timeline Of Expression Of Interest Cannot Be Questioned By Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that issuance of fresh Form G is not required in case of modification in Invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI) when there existed a clause in the EoI permitting the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to extend the timeline for submitting the resolution plan. The Tribunal also held that if based...

Approval Of Resolution Plan Containing Clause Which Permits Creditors To Take Recourse Against Guarantees Cannot Be Interfered With: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that approval of a resolution plan containing a clause that creditors can take appropriate actions in relation to corporate/personal guarantee cannot be interfered with. Brief Facts: State Bank of India filed an insolvency application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) seeking initiation of...

Related Party Status Established Through Agreement Cannot Be Changed By Sending Termination Notice Against Terms Of Agreement: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that related party status established through an agreement under Section 5(24) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be changed by sending a termination notice in contravention of expressed terms of the agreement. Brief Facts: The Corporate Debtor invited the manufacturers to set up their units at...