Intent of Corporate Debtor irrelevant in establishing existence of preferential transaction: NCLAT
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
Resolution Professional
What is the rule for settlement after constitution of ‘Committee of Creditors’? NCLAT Answers
“Any settlement after passing of the impugned order and after constitution of the CoC is only permissible when the same is approved with 90% vote share of CoC.”
Approaching police without resorting to special procedure under IB Code to arm twist the Resolution Professional is inappropriate: Madras High Court
Madras High Court said that there is no reason why the complaint was not filed either before IBBI or NCLT for the alleged fraud.
Resolution Professional under IBC is a ‘public servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act: Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court clarified that Section 233 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC Code’) gives protection to a resolution professional from criminal prosecution for acts in good faith, and not where he has been apprehended red-handed with the bribe amount.
“Law will take its own course”; NCLAT refuses to interfere with NCLT’s order approving Resolution Plan
NCLAT held that that the allocation of meagre amount in Resolution Plan to Creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value but same is not the case in instant matter.
NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 15 days in appeal due to lack of jurisdiction even if fraud has been played
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that as per S. 61(2) every appeal must be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
[Reliance Capital (RCap) Resolution] CoC has power to negotiate and call for higher bid; NCLAT allows another round of bidding
The NCLAT held that even after completion of challenge mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retains its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP.
NCLAT upholds NCLT’s rejection to dislodge resolution plan against POSCO India Processing Center Private Limited
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
Once Resolution Plan approved and submitted to Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be sent back for re-consideration: NCLAT
In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.
NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor
In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority’s order was not followed in its true spirit.
NCLAT stays Insolvency proceeding against Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd
The NCLAT granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) by staying bankruptcy proceedings against them, after the NCLT admitted S. 7 application and directed the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor/ZEEL.
In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? NCLAT Answers
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.
[IBC] Statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim; Delhi High Court quashes show cause issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
In the instant case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence neither submitted proof of claim nor responded to a specific communication via an e-mail addressed to Senior Intelligence Officer. This is a case where despite knowledge, the statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim.
NCLAT| A mistake in demand notice does not make an application defective unless some prejudice is suffered resulting from such mistake
While deciding the present matter dealing with mistake in demand notice, NCLAT held that “the Corporate Debtor has not and would not be prejudiced by fact that Operational Creditor has mentioned the wrong date of default due to its inadvertence.”
NCLAT | IBC overrides Limitation Act; Delay beyond period of 45 days cannot be condoned
While adjudicating an appeal file with a delay of 55 days, the Tribunal held that S. 238 IBC overrides S. 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore this Tribunal does not have power to condone a delay beyond a period of 45 days.
Adjudication of an avoidance application is independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and can survive CIRP: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that adjudication of an avoidance application was independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and could survive Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and a Resolution Professional would not be functus officio with respect to adjudication of avoidance application.
Successful Auction Purchaser can withdraw from e-Auction; NCLAT upheld refund of EMD and first instalment
In a case challenging the Adjudicating Authority’s order to withdraw from e-auction process and refund of EMD and first instalment, the Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority can allow the Successful Auction Purchaser to withdraw from e-auction process when the balance bid amount is due because of the attachment of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
Strong reason required to keep the application in abeyance; NCLAT dismisses appeal finding no error in Adjudicating Authority’s order
The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.
Adjudicating Authority is obligated to give direction for liquidation only when CoC’s decision is in accordance with IBC: NCLAT
In the instant matter, an appeal was filed challenging NCLT's order directing the CoC to reconsider its decision. Upholding the NCLT's order, the Tribunal held that when the CoC's decision for liquidation is in accordance with IBC, then only NCLT's obligation to direct liquidation will arise.
No inconsistency between Section 33 IBC and Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; NCLAT partly allows appeal
In the present case, a Liquidator filed an application before for release/refund of unlawful payment by the applicant. The Tribunal, partly allowing the appeal, upheld the refund of the amount of Rs.25,46,588/- and of the amount of Rs.1,08,797/- as no application for refund was filed for the said amount.