Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 164 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 & Decision etc.
- 2021 (5) TMI 948 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- No resolution plan has been called during the 180 days and extension for the for time limit of this CIRP as per section 12(2) was put before CoC for voting in the last CoC meeting. The voting as received on 12.03.2020, 66% positive vote has not been received from CoC members as mandate for it. Hence, applicant filed this application for initiation of liquidation order u/s. 33 of IBC, 2016 read with regulation 3 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. This is a fit case for liquidation - Liquidation order granted - application allowed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 947 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Moratorium - relevance of section 14 of the Code - Whether appointment of the Corporate Debtor as the developer of the property could be terminated during the pendency of the CIRP? - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the salutary provision of Section 14, would indicate that on the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD/08.05.2019), the institution of the suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor before any authority or any court of law shall be prohibited. In this case there is no dispute that the property in respect of which the development agreement was executed is not an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor only was permitted to develop it in terms of the development agreement. The fact that the Corporate Debtor was the developer in respect of the property and had undertaken certain const....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 946 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Directions to Respondent No. 3 to place the settlement proposals of this Applicant before Respondent No. 2 through Respondent No. 1 - section 60(5), 227 and 239(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- From a bare perusal of Section 12A and Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations, it is amply clear that for any withdrawal of an admitted application it is the Original Applicant, that must present such withdrawal application for approval of the CoC. Once the CoC (Respondent No. 2) has approved the Resolution Plan, the Administrator of the DHFL, has to obtain no-objection from RBI in accordance with Rule 5(d) of the FSP Insolvency Rules. Apart from the same, neither the Code nor the FSP Insolvency Rules, casts any other obligation on RBI vis-à-vis the CIRP process, which is left to be run by the resolution professio....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 944 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
CIRP proceedings - illegal transfer of IPR and business by the corporate debtor - Failure on the part of Promoter-Director Jasjit Singh Sawhney to provide information to the RP for discharging his functions during the CIRP - avoidance of preferential transactions, undervalued transactions and fraudulent and wrongful trading and diversion of the business of the Corporate Debtor. Non-co-operation of promoter-director and his men - HELD THAT:- Initially, the Resolution Professional/the applicant sent emails dated 14.03.2019, 18.03.2019 to its promoter director (Rl-Sahweny) seeking information of the corporate debtor, to which Mr. Sawhney on 19.03.2019 replied seeking time to provide information, subsequent to it, one of the employees of the Corporate Debtor namely Mr. Sumit Gupta sent an email on 31.03.2019 along with some information. As th....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 943 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Rejection of claim filed by the Applicant (FC and OC) before the Respondent in respect of operational debt due and payable by the Corporate Debtor, by RP - rejection on the ground that the amount claimed is disputed and is pending adjudication before Arbitral Tribunal & District Court - HELD THAT:- The admission of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was passed on 09.08.2019. The IRP was confirmed as RP by the CoC as it first meeting on 09.09.2019. The IRP issued public announcement in Form "A" to receive claim from creditors of Corporate Debtor. The last date filing of the claim as per the public announcement was 07.11.2019, whereas the applicant lodged its claim on 12.11.2019 - In the instant case the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Corporate Debtor and a counter claim was filed by the Applicant herein and the same ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 942 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
Seeking extension of time period of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor by a period of 90 days effective 30.03.2020 - sections 12 and 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- As per the facts of the present case, there is no resolution for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. As per section 33(1) of the IBC, 2016 which contemplates that if the maximum period permitted for completion of the CIRP has expired then this Tribunal has to order for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Since this Tribunal has not granted the extension of the CIRP beyond the stipulated period of 180 days, as per operation of Section 33(1) of the IBC, 2016, the Corporate Debtor should be ordered for liquidation. Section 33(1) of the IBC, 2016. The Resolution Professional expressed his willingness to continue as the liquidator and also a perusal....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 939 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors or not - existence of debt or dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is found that due to defaults committed by the respondent/CD, the account of the CD was classified as NPA on 27.12.2018. Subsequently, the FC has issued Demand Notice dated 08.01.2019 (page 73) under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act demanding total outstanding dues. Unable to get response from the CD, the FC has taken symbolic possession of properties on 07.06.2019 and 20.06.2019. Both the parties have preferred proceedings before different forums. The respondent/had preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana - the Adjudicating Authority admits this Petition under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, declaring moratorium for the purposes referred to in Section 14 of the Code - Petition allowed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 921 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
Seeking direction against the Appellant Banks and Financial Institutions to reimburse all the amounts appropriated by them after the Insolvency Commencement Date - Seeking to resume the working capital limits as available to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as on the Insolvency Commencement Date. HELD THAT:- As per Section 17(1)(d) of the I&B Code, the Financial Institutions maintaining the accounts of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ have to act on the instructions of the Interim Resolution Professional in relation to such accounts and furnish all information relating to the ‘Corporate Debtor’. This Tribunal in a catena of Judgements has held that Banks cannot debit any amounts from the account of the ‘Corporate Debtor Company’ after the Order of moratorium, as it amounts to recovery of amount - the Banks ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 912 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Recovery of electricity charges during CIRP - Whether the Appellant was entitled to recover electricity charges being incurred by the Corporate Debtor on month to month basis after the CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- Regulation 32 makes the distinction clear. If the electricity consumption was for manufacturing and output of the Biscuits which is the normal operation of the Corporate Debtor, in that case dues arising from such supply of electricity during moratorium would have to be paid during moratorium - In present matter the consumption is stated to have been for running of office and security of Corporate Debtor. In that case, the same will be part of the CIRP Costs which can be recovered when the Resolution Plan is approved or would form part of Section 53 if the Liquidation has been initiated. The electricity charges during CIRP would form part of CIRP Costs - Appeal disposed off.
- 2021 (5) TMI 900 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
Seeking possession of an asset of the corporate debtor held by India Infoline Finance Ltd. through SARFAESI proceedings - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has filed the financial contract disclosing that the Suspended Director Mr. Vinay Jain executing a loan agreement in favour of the Applicant herein, the Applicant disbursing the loan amount to the ESCROW Account, thereafter appropriating the said amount towards the earlier loan accounts which became irregular and also documents reflecting sale of the property mortgaged by Best View Properties Limited. Moreover, the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor have not denied anywhere about taking amounts through three loan accounts prior to availing this loan by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor and depositing this loan amount of ₹ 85 Crore in the ESCROW Account, thereafter a....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 898 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
Exclusion of time from CIRP process - covid-19 lockdown pandemic situation - HELD THAT:- The prayer of the IRP to exclude to 154 days to continue CIRP till 17/07/2020 has already been allowed by this Bench. So, this prayer of the applicant has become infructuous in view of the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by this Bench. Stay on proceeding not provided - HELD THAT:- Since the proceeding was not stayed by the Hon'ble NCLAT, therefore, the prayer of the applicant to exclude the period commencing from 27.07.2020 to 04.09.2020(39 days) on the ground that Hon'ble NCLAT has stayed the proceeding is not liable to be accepted. Accordingly, this prayer of the applicant/Resolution Professional is hereby rejected. Exclusion of Covid-19 period exclusion for the period beyond 17.07.2020 to 27.07.2020 for the situs of office of RP (as registere....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 875 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Validity of application admitted for initiation of CIRP - pre-existing dispute or not - contravention of Rule 152, Rule 150 and Rule 89 of the NCLT Rules 2016. Whether there is any pre-existing dispute? - HELD THAT:- Upon a bare reading of e-mail dated 03.11.2016, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor stated that the supplied coal is not as per specification and due to that nozzle bent and boiler has become damaged which would lead to heavy production losses. Hence, it was requested that delivery of the coal be stopped. It is also mentioned that if more losses occurred due to poor/inferior quality of coal they may debit the same amount in the account of Operational Creditor - Corporate Debtor has neither issued any debit note nor has returned the supplied coal but consumed the same. It means that after receiving the e-mail dated 04.11.201....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 873 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial creditor - time limitation - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Application under Section 7 (Annexure A-2 Page 77) is stated to have been filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 21st May, 2018. It appears that effort at restructuring did not give desired result and the NPA was declared with back date of 29th June, 2012. Thus there are documents on record even subsequent to 29th June, 2012 like Second Amendatory Agreement dated 13th March, 2014. The Application under Section 7 shows Demand Notices being issued under SARFAESI Act on 31st January, 2015 and 19th June, 2016. It appears that O.A. 150/2016 was also filed before the DRT - The reply which was sent in response to the SARFAESI Notice is withi....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 859 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Seeking Extension of the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor - Regulation 44(2) of The IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The prescribed period for completing the Liquidation Process needs to be extended. The present IA deserves to be allowed partly. Consequently, the liquidation period is extended by six months from the date of the Order. Further the period consumed during the lockdown period has to be excluded/exempted from counting the period prescribed for Liquidation period by following the suo moto decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (5) TMI 564 - SC ORDER] by extending/exempting the period from 15th March 2020 till 14th March 21 and again now until further order. Application allowed in part.
- 2021 (5) TMI 855 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Reliance can be placed in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that There is a pre-existing dispute between the parties which is evident from the email correspondence between the parties which was produced before this Adjudicating Authority by the Corporate Debtor along with its Counter. The Corporate Debtor had duly replied to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor and the disputes between them are pointed out in its reply. In view of the Apex Court's observation and the existence of dispute between the parties, this Adjudicating Authority has to reject the application - application dismissed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 823 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH
Approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- There is no communication from the RP to the Applicant rejecting the claim. It is no defence to argue that the list of creditors was uploaded on the website of the corporate debtor, and therefore, there is constructive notice to the world at large. Be that as it may, as soon the Applicant came to know of it, he filed an application under section 60(5) of the Code on 03.02.2020, seeking judicial intervention in the matter. It cannot be the fault of the applicant that the application which was filed on 03.02.2020, could not come up for hearing before the application for approval of the Resolution Plan came up on 04.02.2020. It cannot now be contended that the Adjudicating Authority denuded of jurisdiction to deal with the present application only because the Resolution Plan has been approved - the a....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 819 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - service of demand notice - HELD THAT:- The date of default relied upon by the Operational Creditor is 29.11.2019 - In the instant case, the nature of transaction is such that it was necessary to annex the invoices for proving the existence of default. Since the invoices bearing no. 1056 to 1059 were not annexed by the Operational Creditor with the Demand Notice, its reliance on 29.11.2019 as the date of default is erroneous. This defect is of such a nature that it cannot be allowed to be rectified at this stage by exercising our power as stipulated under the Proviso to Section 9(5)(ii) of IBC 2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K. EDUCATIONAL SER....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 785 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of demand notice - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The applicant issued a demand notice under section 8 in Form 4 of I&B Code (Under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 on 18.09.2019. The said notice was sent by Speed Post at the registered address of the corporate debtor as reflected in the master data, which is duly delivered to the Corporate Debtor on 19.09.2019. The tracking report is filed, which mentions 'Shipment Delivered' at the registered address as per master data. The Corporate Debtor has neither raised any dispute to the aforesaid notice nor made any payment towards the outstanding d....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 784 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Liability of Purchaser of corporate debtor under liquidation under auction - Certain demand raised by the liquidator - Levy of interest on the balance sale consideration paid for sale of assets of Corporate Debtor as a going concern - seeking exemption and waiver off of interest being charged on the Applicant - applicability of TDS being charged on the Applicant - seeking Liquidator to handover peaceful possession to the Applicant of the Corporate Debtor's factory, building and machinery - HELD THAT:- After going through all the facts and documents as produced by the Applicant/Auction Purchaser is of the view that, it is matter of record that the Applicant has made made the entire payment towards the sale consideration of ₹ 18,72,00,000/- and it is only after the entire payment being made by the Applicant that the Liquidator has....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 780 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH
Seeking replacement of Financial Creditors - Assignment of debt by Financial Creditors to applicant - Applicant seeking to continue prosecuting the instant proceedings against the Respondents/Personal Guarantors, in place of the Respondent No. 1/Financial Creditor etc - Section 60(5)(C) of the IBC, 2016, R/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Financial Creditor has submitted that the debt in question has been assigned to the Applicant i.e. Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. in place of Respondent No. 1/Financial Creditor i.e. M/s. Altico Capital India Ltd. against the Respondent No. 2 and 3/Corporate Debtors i.e. Mr. Vinay K Mehta and Mr. Prateek K Mehta respectively. He has also submitted in his Memorandum dated 22.04.2021 that the Respondent No. 1/Financial Creditor h....... + More