|
Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Appellate Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 60 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1191
Seeking restraint order against respondent no. 2 to 5 except seeking direction to deposit their passport - whether the Appellant has locus to file application or not - whether the objection filed in application were valid? - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the Adjudicating Authority has observed that Application filed by the Applicant i.e. I.A. No. 287 of 2018 is not maintainable he being the Operational Creditor. I.A. No. 287 of 2018 was not listed for consideration and which Application is still pending and was not disposed of. In I.A. No. 287 of 2018, the Appellant has raised various issues and has prayed for several reliefs and without adverting to the said application and without giving opportunity to the Appellant on the said application it was not open for the Adjudicating Authority to make observations as noted above. When an Applica....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1190
Maintainability of application filed under sections 33 and 34 of the IBC in relation to a previously sanctioned scheme for rehabilitation of the sick company JKSL under SICA - Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in giving liberty to the operational creditors to file application under section 33(3) of IBC? - HELD THAT:- The judgment in Pramod Kumar Pathak [2022 (12) TMI 613 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] has clearly noticed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Spartek Ceramics India Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 1660 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Judgment of NCLAT holding that the appeal filed by the Central Government in that case not maintainable in view of the fact that the Notification dated 24.05.2017 travels beyond the scope of the removal of difficulties pr....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1147
Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - demand notice was defective or not - service of demand notice - existence of debt and dispute or not. Whether the demand notice was defective? - HELD THAT:- The rival contention of the Operational Creditor is that the acronym “LI” stands for Lex Innova and the Corporate Debtor have themselves used the word Lex Innova in the letter-head of the Appointment Letter dated 02.08.2018 issued by them to the Operational Creditor. Thus, the Corporate Debtor is also clearly associated with the name “LexInnova" - even in the Settlement slip at page 117 of Appeal Paper Book (APB), the word Lexinnova has been used by the Corporate Debtor Company. Further the forwarding email from the HR Team of the Corporate Debtor to the Responde....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1146
Seeking to condone the delay of 17 days in preferring the instant Appeal - Rule of Construction - HELD THAT:- It is latently and patently quite clear that the period of Limitation as per Order of this Tribunal dated 21.10.2022, shall be calculated from the presentation of the Appeal, in the instant case, the Appeal, having been presented by the Appellant, (submission of Appeal papers, through physical mode (on 12.12.2022), on the 47th day, which is beyond the 45 days (30 + 15 days), clearly barred by Limitation - the further delay of 2 days, after 45 days, is beyond a period of Limitation (30 + 15 days), which cannot be condoned, by this Appellate Tribunal, and in this regard, this Tribunal has no power to excuse the same. This Tribunal, on a careful consideration of divergent contentions advanced on either side, and also taking into acco....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1145
Seeking refund to the Corporate Debtor’s Account in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - existence of sufficient cause and non-appearance of the parties or not - the grievance of the Appellant / Bank / Petitioner is that the Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.10.2022 without taking into consideration Rule 49 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Rule 49 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 under the caption, Ex parte Hearing and Disposal points out that if a Notice was not duly served or the concerned person was prevented by any sufficient cause for appearing at the time when the Petition / Application was called for Hearing, the Tribunal (Adjudicating Authority) can pass an Order, by setting aside the Ex parte Hearing, as against it / him or them, (after being satisfied with the reason (s) assigned, of course) o....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1144
Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - pre-existing dispute or not - Appellant has contended that the Section 9 application was wrongly admitted by the Adjudicating Authority on the sole ground that there was no ground for pre-existing dispute between the parties though there was strict evidence proving the contrary and that aggrieved by the impugned order. Whether the operational debt claimed by the Operational Creditor was admitted by the Corporate Debtor as due and payable and not surrounded by pre-existing disputes? HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority while noting that the Corporate Debtor has denied their obligation to pay pending dues to the Operational Creditor, it has further held that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor in denying the claims is an after-thoug....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1106
Recall of order - power to review - CIRP initiated - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the Corporate Debtor had appeared on both the dates and that the copy of the Petition and the supporting documents were served on them on 02.11.2022, hence the Adjudicating Authority had closed the opportunity to file the Counter; the matter was posted For Hearing on 05.12.2022 and thereafter on 05.01.2023, the CIRP was initiated. When the matter came up For Hearing on 05.12.2022, the Corporate Debtor could have been present and submitted his arguments. Though, his right to file the Counter was closed, he was not set Ex Parte as on the date 21.11.2022 and therefore he could have appeared on 05.12.2022 when the matter was posted For Final Hearing and having been present as on 11.1....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1053
Seeking directions against the Respondents 2 & 3 for malicious and frivolous initiation of CIRP - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that the CIRP Process is over, the Liquidation Process is almost complete as on the date of Impugned Order i.e., 12.03.2021 and the Assets were sold at a good price and sale proceeds were distributed amongst the Shareholders, we do not see any ground to set the clock back or to interfere with the Orders of the Adjudicating Authority dated 27.02.2020 and 12.03.2021 respectively. Furthermore, a perusal of the material on record shows that the Appellant and Respondents 2 & 3 entered into a Memorandum of Settlement on 15.03.2016 and the Petition was disposed of vide Order dated 17.03.2016 - It is seen from the aforenoted Order that the remedy available for the Appellants was to file appropriate Procee....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1052
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - mode of sale - public auction - Section 33 of IBC - HELD THAT:- In the present case, Respondent No.2 who was the Applicant making an offer to acquire the assets of the Corporate Debtor was at best an offeror whose offer was required to be tested with any other willing interested person and the Adjudicating Authority ought to have asked the liquidator to conduct the private sale and give opportunity to others to compete since the maximisation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor is the object of the IBC. Merely on the basis of one application and other by an intervenor, the Adjudicating Authority could not have concluded the sale in favour of the Respondent No.2. The liquidator has earlier rejected the offer given by the Respondent No.2 which clearly meant that the liquidator was not satisfied with the of....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 997
Maintainability of application - Prohibitory period under Section 10A of the I&B Code - principal submission pressed by the Appellant is that as per Annexure 3 to the Debenture Subscription Agreement, clause 6, the date of default for repayment occurs on 31.08.2020, which was during the prohibitory period under Section 10A of the I&B Code - HELD THAT:- The submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that as per Annexure-3 clause 6, the date of repayment of instalment is 31.08.2020 only is not acceptable. There being clear admission on behalf of the Appellant in default in payment of interest for the quarters ending September 2019 and December 2019, Appellant cannot be permitted to contend that default was committed only on 31.08.2020. Insofar as application being barred by 10A, benefit under Section 10A can be claimed by t....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 996
Validity, Viability and Feasibility of Resolution Plan - Liquidation Value - Section 30 (6) (c) and 31 of the I & B Code, 2016 - main grievance of the Appellant is that, the mere glance of the Resolution Plan, makes it clear that the Resolution Applicant, had hijacked the Substantial Assets of the Corporate Debtor, at a Price, substantially below the Liquidated Value of the Corporate Debtor, as defined in Regulation 2 (k) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016. HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is quite evident that the 2nd Respondent through a Resolution Plan, had offered Rs.50.70 Crores as Full and Final Settlement of all the Liabilities of the 1st Respondent / Corporate Debtor, which was duly approved with requisite majority of the Committee of Credit....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 946
Recovery of premises being used as Registered Office of the corporate debtor, by the landlord JOML during the subsistence of moratorium after the initiation of CIRP - monthly rent was agreed upon and is payable to the landlord JOML by the corporate debtor, before or during the imposition of moratorium. Whether said premises owned by JOML, situated at Village Tilmapur, Gazipur Road, Ashapur, Varanasi were being used by the corporate debtor prior to the initiation of CIRP of JVL Agro? - HELD THAT:- The said premises were definitely in possession of JVL Agro from 14.2.2018, if not earlier, and was definitely in the possession of the corporate debtor on 25.7.2018 when the CIRP of the corporate debtor was initiated. Whether the insertion of padlocks on the gates of the said premises was permitted in view of moratorium which was in force? - HEL....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 945
Seeking sanction of resolution plan, approved in the meeting of Committee of Creditors - Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - failure to appreciate the mandatory provision of Section 29-A, Section 24(3)(c) & Section 30(2) of the Code - considering ineligible party as Successful Resolution Applicant - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the Adjudicating Authority gave this order on 27.02.2020 and no appeal was preferred against this order, therefore, the order of Adjudicating Authority in CA No. 314 of 2019 has achieved finality and moreover, it is also noted that under Section 24(3)(c) the participation of a representative of the operational creditors does not confer any voting right on the representative of the operational creditors and therefore, nonparticipation of a representative cannot have bearing either in conduct....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 920
Delay in filing of appeal - Time Limitation - Avoidance of transactions - extension of prescribed period in certain cases in respect of delay caused in filing of the appeal or application within the prescribed period - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT:- In normal circumstances, as per the provision of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, after the death of Respondent No. 1 on 26.04.2021 the application for impleadment for LRs could have been filed up to 26.07.2021 but in the present case the death of Respondent was not within the knowledge of the Appellant (Liquidator) and it cannot also be presumed that he knew about his death until and unless some cogent evidence is produced rather the factum of the death was brought before the Tribunal as well to the notice of the Applicant for the first time on 12.07.2021 without ....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 907
Scope of Liquidation Estate - auction - immovable property’ being AC 44.65 Cents of Industrial Land at Nidadavole Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh being unrelinquished, as communicated to the Liquidator - principles of Balance of Convenience - HELD THAT:- It transpires that the Liquidator through an E-mail on 06.09.2021 had claimed possession of the property to be handed over to him and that the Applicant / Appellant had failed to sell over the possession of the properties to and in favour of the Liquidator and hence, the Applicant / Appellant was perforced to prefer IA(IBC)/857(CHE)/2021 in CP/1053/IB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - I, Chennai) seeking extension of Three Months period. This Tribunal on going through the impugned order passed in IA(IB....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 906
Maintainability of second application on the same cause of action - exactly similar application had earlier been filed as I.A. No. 3431-3433 of 2022 which was argued for sometime and withdrawn with liberty to avail any other remedy but for the remedy before this Tribunal - Prayer for revival and relisting of CA (AT) (Ins) No. 627 of 2019 and to adjudicate the same upon the questions of facts and law as raised therein, except upon the question of limitation - seeking to direct Respondent No. 2 not to proceed with the CIRP till disposal of present application - how a second application on the same cause of action is maintainable? HELD THAT:- Such a procedure cannot be followed as it is against the judicial propriety and public policy in as much as it will breed an unending litigation before the Courts of Law. Even otherwise, liberty was not....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 905
Withholding of professional fees of petitioner - whether the Fee for Professional Services, constituted as an Operational Debt? - reimbursement of Travelling Expenses, would not an amount of payment to Professional Fee - Invoice was not appreciated in proper Direction - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a summary proceeding and the Code is an inbuilt and self-contained one and the Proceedings are not to be decided, like that of a Suit, before a Competent Civil Court, taking note of the fact that the Respondent, at any cost, is not accepting the case of the Appellant, in regard to the Fees required by him and the plea of the Respondent is not moonshine, this Tribunal, at this juncture, simpliciter deems it fit that directing the Appellant to resort to approach the Competent Forum for redre....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 904
Service of order - listing of the application on the same day through email - before the application could have been decided, the impugned order was passed - opportunity for hearing not provided - violation of principle of audi alteram partem (principles of natural justice) - HELD THAT:- There is a total fallacy on the part of the Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned order as it hits the salutary principle of audi alteram partem. The presence of the Appellant was shown in the order dated 01.09.2022 when the order was reserved and at the same time, the order of correction has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority when IA No. 4453 of 2022 was allowed on 22.09.2022 which means that the Appellant was not present when the matter was heard and order was reserved, therefore, there was no representation on behalf of the Appellant be....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 813
Seeking consideration of Revised Resolution Plan after receipt of Resolution Plan - whether after closure of Challenge Process on 15.07.2022 and consequent receipt of Resolution Plan by 18.07.2022, the Adjudicating Authority could have directed for consideration of the revised plan submitted by the Respondent No.2 thereafter? - HELD THAT:- Clause 7 of the Challenge Process clearly contemplates that after conclusion of the Challenge Process, the eligible Resolution Applicants shall not revise their bid/commercial offer. It is relevant to notice that Challenge Process also reserves the unconditional right of the CoC to cancel/ modify/ withdraw/ abandon/ amend the process of the Challenge Process at any stage. The approval of the plan submitted in CIRP is in the domain of the CoC. Under Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations, the Committee is....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 812
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP with a malicious intent or not - grievance of the Appellant is that, the 1st Respondent / Bank had declared the account of the 2nd Respondent / Corporate Debtor as Fraud, without any cogent proof and later, lodged a complaint with the Enforcement Agencies, which was a violation of the Corporate Debtor’s basic rights, guaranteed under the Constitution of India - case making out for insolvency or not - HELD THAT:- It cannot be forgotten that an Application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, was made on 19.08.2021, by the 1st Respondent / Bank, and the Date of Default, was 31.10.2018. As such, the Application, filed under Section 7 of the Code, by the 1st Respondent / Bank, before the Adjudicating Authority, is well within time and its Ex-facie, is maintainable....... + More
|
