|
Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 43 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 1354 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - whether a principal debtor cannot be regarded in default - Held that:- It cannot be concluded that the Corporate Debtor-guarantor could be regarded as defaulter once no default is deemed to be committed by the principal borrower, namely CJSC CHL International. In view of Clause 4 of the Guarantee Agreement, it is only in the event of default on the part of the principal borrower that the guarantor has assumed the liability to repay. All the three Loan Agreements dated 23.09.2010, 26.08.2010 and 18.03.2015 have been suspended, which were between the Financial Creditor and the principal borrower.
As been observed in the case of Industrial Finance Corpn of India Ltd.[2002 (4) TMI 943 - SUPREME COURT] that in a case where there is a provision in the agreement to the contrary in respect of co-extensive nature of the liability of a surety then such a provision must be given effect. Therefore, the petition does not warrant admission. We may mention that various other submissions have not been examined as we do not feel the necessity of doing so.
We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the submissions of Mr. Mehra that there is nothing in the order passed by the Economic Courts at Dushanbe to create a bar for filing of an application under Section 7 of the Code. The arguments with regard to the jurisdiction of the Economic Courts at Dushanbe has not impressed us because the applicant-Financial Creditor has not only surrendered to the jurisdiction but it has filed pleadings. In the present case, we have noticed the orders passed by the Economic Courts at Dushanbe to show the non-existence of liability of ‘Principal Debtor’ and there could not be any default on its part. Therefore, no liability could be fastened on the guarantor-Corporate Debtor. We are not executing those order so as to require fulfilment of various features of Section 13 and Section 44A of the CPC.
As already held the principal debtor cannot be regarded in default in accordance with law and therefore, no liability of guarantor/surety would arise at this stage. Petition dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1353 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate insolvency process - eligible debt - review petition - Held that:- the instant application, which is in the nature of review, does not warrant acceptance. The non applicant- petitioner had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code alleging that deposits made by it have remained unpaid and the total amount claimed was more than Rs, 44.50 crores. Such a transaction does not involve an activity which is imputable to an NBFC. The fact that the applicant-respondent is registered as NBFC would not be sufficient to assume that all transaction irrespective of their nature and character would be regarded as activity of a financial service provider.
By no stretch of imagination, it could mean that every NBFC is covered by the expression ‘financial service provider’ a license holder as ‘NBFC also have activities other than that of ‘financial service provider’. Applicant-respondent cannot successfully claim that having accepted deposits he has become financial service provider. Code has not excluded NBFC as a class but has preferred to go by the test of financial service provider. It therefore follows that the NBFC ipso facto has not been excluded from the definition of Corporate person as defined under section 3(7) of the Code. Mr. Agarwal has rightly contended that the functional test has been devised by using the expression that a corporate person shall not include any ‘financial service provider’ and an NBFC necessarily would have various facet of other activities would not be covered by the expression ‘Financial Service Provider’.
In the case of Forech India (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2017 (11) TMI 1621 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI] has taken a view that no application under Sections 7, 9 & 10 of IBC, 2016 would be maintainable in case a liquidation order has been passed in respect of the same Corporate Debtor in winding up proceedings either by the High Court or by the Tribunal. In that regard reliance has been placed on the ineligibility clause in Section 11(d) of the IBC and the meaning of the word ‘winding up’ given in Sections 2(23) and 94A. The view of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is binding on us as per the principles of stare decisis and the precedents. Therefore, the aforesaid argument would also not survive for consideration. Review application fails
-
2018 (2) TMI 1222 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Duties of resolution professional - non-compliance of the requirements of the Code - Held that:- Non-issuance of the notice of the Meeting of the COC held on 4.1.2018 to the Resolution Applicant in this case is not fatal which requires interference of this Adjudicating Authority with the decision of the COC.
Here, the COC rejected the Resolution Plan not on the ground that it is not a viable Resolution Plan, but on the ground that it is not in conformity with the requirements of the Code. On the ground that the Resolution Plan is not rejected by the Resolution Professional on the basis that it does not confirm to the requirements of the Code and Regulations, it cannot be concluded that the Resolution Plan is in accordance with the requirements.
When the information is there before the COC regarding the non-compliance of the requirements of the Code and Regulations, Committee of Creditors is perfectly justified in rejecting the Resolution Plan. Therefore, there are no facts and circumstances that warrant interference by this Adjudicating Authority in the rejection of the Resolution Plan dated 3.1.2018 submitted by the Resolution Applicant, even assuming that this Adjudicating Authority has got jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of the rejection of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant. Application dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1221 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate insolvency process - satisfaction of default - Held that:- The case is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi to admit the application under Section 10 after notice to the parties if there is no defect. In case of any defect, appellant be allowed time to remove the defects. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations. See “M/s. Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank and others” – Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) [2018 (1) TMI 505 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI]
-
2018 (2) TMI 1164 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate insolvency procedure - Insolvency Professionals appointment - Held that:- Insolvency Professionals for appointment as Insolvency Resolution Professional in compliance with Section 16(3)(a) of the Code in order to cut delay. The list of recommended Insolvency Professionals provides instant solution to the Adjudicating Authority to pick up the name and make appointment. It helps in meeting the time line given in the Code and the unnecessary time wasted firstly in asking the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to recommend the name and then to appoint such Interim Resolution Professional by Adjudicating Authority. Interim Resolution Professional has filed necessary declaration in accordance with the IBBI Regulations and the provisions of the Code.
In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of IBC we direct that public announcement shall be immediately made by the Interim Resolution Professional with regard to admission of this application under Section 7 of IBC. We also declare moratorium in terms of Section 14 of IBC. The consequences of imposing the moratorium flows from the provisions of Section 14(1)(a),(b),(c) 8 & (d).
-
2018 (2) TMI 1095 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Whether the Award amount is an operational debt?- Whether Petitioner, i.e., TVS Interconnect Systems Private Limited is an Operational Creditor - Whether there exists any dispute relating to the operational debt? - enforce the Arbitration Agreement - suppression of material facts - Held that:- In view of the Assignment Agreement, it can be said that the Petitioner is an 'Assignee' of the operational debt due to MOKA from ORG. The Petitioner, in this case is not seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on the basis of the debt assigned to it, but on the basis of the Arbitral Award. Therefore, Petitioner although can be termed as 'Operational Creditor' in respect of the operational debt assigned to it, it cannot enforce the Arbitration Agreement which is in favour of MOKA the Assignor unless there is specific assignment of the arbitral award amount to the Petitioner provided the Award amount is having the characteristics of operational debt. Therefore, the Petitioner being an Assignee under the Assignment Agreement of the operational debt cannot maintain this Petition for recovery of arbitral Award amount which has not been assigned to it.
The material on record show that the Petitioner obtained assigned debt from MOKA on 14.11.2013 during the pendency of arbitral proceedings and the same was also brought to the notice of the learned Arbitrator. It is also a fact that MOKA also filed Section 138, N.I. Act case before the Criminal Court, and that fact was in the knowledge of the Petitioner. But Petitioner made self-serving statement in the Reply Affidavit that only recently it came to know about the winding up proceedings. Therefore, it is a clear case where the Petitioner cannot deny knowledge about the winding up proceedings filed by MOKA which is Assignor of the debt of ORG. Therefore, such a material fact has been suppressed by the Petitioner.
The contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract, as it may affect the interest of either of the parties adversely. In the case on hand, the Assignment Agreement is only with reference to the operational debt but not to the Award amount. Therefore, the assignment contract if strictly construed cannot take in its ambit the arbitral Award amount.
-
2018 (2) TMI 986 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate insolvency process - existence of dispute - Held that:- We find that there is an ‘existence of dispute’ pending even before the issuance of demand notice under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the I & B Code.
In view of ‘existence of dispute’, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In absence of any merit also, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 985 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Held that:- In the case in hand, it is an undisputed fact that Corporate Debtor is a going concern and has about 1178 employees and workmen on its Roll. RP has also admitted that corporate debtor is a going concern. Section 33(7) also provides that order of liquidation shall be deemed to be a notice of discharge to the officers, employees and workers of the Corporate Debtor, except when the business of the Corporate Debtor is continued during the liquidation process. Regulation 32 also provides provision for the manner of sale during liquidation process which shows that it can be by way of slump sale and slump sale means the transfer of an undertaking as a whole. In the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Allahabad Bank (2000 (9) TMI 931 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), we pass following orders in addition to the orders made above.
(1) The Liquidator shall try to dispose off the Corporate Debtor company as a going concern after publication of notice in newspaper with the reserve price which shall be equal to the total debt amount including interest and maximum period applicable for trying the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern will be only three months from the date of the order, if the process of sale as a going concern is failed during this period, then process of the sale of the assets of the company will be according to the provisions of sale of asset of the Corporate Debtor prescribed under section 33, Chapter VI of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. In case it is not concluded within this period, the order of this Court directing the sale of the company as a going concern shall stand set aside and corporate debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter III of the Liquidation Process provided in Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.
(2) The Liquidator is further directed to issue a public announcement stating that the Corporate Debtor is in liquidation.
(3) It is also ordered that copy of the order be sent to the Registrar of Companies with which the Corporate Debtor is registered.
It is further declared that subject to provision of section 52, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the Corporate Debtor.
Provided that a suit or other legal proceedings may be instituted by the Liquidator on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, with the prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority. Above provision shall not apply to legal proceedings about such transactions, as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any Financial Sector Regulators.
-
2018 (2) TMI 984 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Corporate insolvency procedure - Resolution Applicant for transmitting to the Committee of Creditors for taking immediate steps - Held that:- In the case in hand, the guarantee has not been invoked, and the personal guarantor has not committed any default. No demand has been made under guarantee. Therefore, no default in the payment of dues by the guarantor has occurred. During the moratorium period, the guarantee cannot be invoked. Thus, present Resolution Applicant is not barred by clause (c) and clause (h) of section 29A of the I.B. Code.
It is pertinent to mention that in the case in hand the extended period for submission of Resolution Plan is going to expire on 23rd Dec 2017. The Resolution Applicant has submitted the revised Resolution Plan after deliberate discussion in consecutive meetings of CoC, and the same was under consideration meanwhile IB Amendment Ordinance promulgated on 23rd Nov 2017. Aims and objective of the Ordinance were to prohibit certain persons from submitting a Resolution Plan who, on account of their antecedents, may adversely impact the credibility of the processes under the Code. It is clear that contract of guarantee under which no claim has been made and which need not be performed cannot be treated as a subsisting or enforceable contract for clause (h) of section 29A, as the liability to pay for a guarantor arises when the debt is crystalised. If the guarantee is not invoked and demand is not made on the guarantor, debt payable by him is not crystalised.
The Company Application has been decided to clarify the position of the Resolution Applicant, who happens to be the personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, against whom guarantee has not been invoked, and demand has not been made, regarding his eligibility to submit a resolution plan. In such a situation guarantor cannot be deemed to be a defaulter, therefore, his case is not covered under clauses (c) and (h) of section 29A of the amended I.B. Code. Disqualifying the entire class of guarantors under clause (h) of section 29A would be discriminatory. However, it is to be made clear that we have clarified the legal position only and CoC has to take independent decision on the Resolution Plan of the applicant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 885 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Time limit for completion of insolvency resolution process - extension of the CIRP more than 90 days after the completion of 180 days - Held that:- It is settled principle that the proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify by implication what enactment clearly says, nor set at naught the real object of main enactment, unless the words of proviso are such that it is its necessary effect.
To support the view, a reference may be made to Maxwell on the “Interpretation of Statues” 10th Edition page 7 states thus “…if the choices is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the holder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bring about an effective result.”
In view of the legal position stated above, the second objection raised by the Counsel for the Operational Creditor stands rejected. Therefore, this Authority is satisfied that the CIRP could not be completed during 180 days plus 30 days in this matter, so there is a requirement to grant extension of CIRP for a further period of sixty days. Hence, the CIRP period in relation to the Corporate Debtor, viz., M/s. Forward Shoes (India), private Limited, is hereby extended for a further period of 60 days w.e.f. 15.01.2018 onwards.
-
2018 (2) TMI 884 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Held that:- We have seen the primary document, Annexure-R/1 which is entered between M/s. Blue Star Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent company. The respondent company has also relied on Annexure-R/5, the power of attorney given by M/s. Blue Star Alloys Pvt. Ltd., in favour of Shri Mohammed Saleem Shaikh wherein he was only an authorised representative to lift the scrap material from the respondent company and that too on behalf of M/s. Blue Star Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The same Mr. Mohammed Saleem Shaikh is representing the petitioner company in this petition. So, it is only a power of attorney of M/s. Blue Star Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has no locus standi to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent. The petitioner is not the operational creditor of the respondent. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be rejected.
-
2018 (2) TMI 731 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH
Insolvency resolution process - existence of default in payment of debt - delivery of demand notice to the corporate-debtor - Held that:- There is no averment in the objections that the address of the corporate-debtor as furnished by the operational creditor was inicorrect. Rather, there is no challenge with regard to the delivery of the entire paper book, which was sent at the time of filing the instant petition and also receipt of notice of the instant petition issued by the Adjudicating Authority at the same address. Anyhow, the tracking report of the postal department with regard to delivery of the demand notice is the conclusive proof of the delivery and this objection seems to have been taken just for the sake of it.
The resolution process can be initiated on occurrence of the default by the corporate-debtor as per Section 8(1) of the Code. Admittedly the respondent-corporate debtor has committed default as according to the respondent itself, there is an outstanding liability of ₹ 68,20,235/- as on 11.05.2017 as per its own ledger account as at Annexure R-1 attached with the objections. The application filed in Form No.5 is complete in all respects as the required information has been furnished. The petitioner has also complied with various clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 9 (3) of the Code as already discussed.
The petitioner cannot be forced to buy goods from the respondent-corporate debtor and it has every right to claim the outstanding amount which is overdue. The petitioner admittedly stopped making purchases from the respondent-corporate debtor from May 2017 and sent the demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Code which would have been a sufficient alert for the respondent, to repay the outstanding amount. The respondent cannot raise a voice to say that there was no term fixed for payment for the outstanding amount on the ground that the transactions between the parties continued in the normal course of business since 2012 and that various payments have been made from time to time as reflected from the ledger account of both the parties. The above contention cannot be said to raising a 'dispute' which may be covered within the definition of the term as defined in sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Code. If there is a difference of about ₹ 2 lacs in the total outstanding amount as per the books of account of the parties, that is for the Interim Resolution Professional or Resolution Professional as the case may be, to determine. The term 'default' is defined in sub-section (12) of Section 3 of the Code as per which non-payment of debt when whole or any part or instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not repaid by the debtor or the corporate debtor, as the case may be.
One of the objections raised by the corporate debtor that there is concealment of material fact by the operational creditor with regard to the purchases made by the petitioner from the respondent is not acceptable as there is a categorical assertion of the petitioner that the goods/materials were supplied as per the invoices/bills (sales) to the corporate debtor and thereafter against the entire outstanding payment of supply of goods/materials there was adjustments/set-off in the books of account of the operational creditor as payments/part payments of entire outstanding amount by way of purchase of items of corporate debtor as per the summary statement. So, there is no force in the contention that there is concealment of the material facts.
Instant petition deserves to be admitted. The instant petition is admitted declaring moratorium in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Code.
-
2018 (2) TMI 692 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - proof of inability to pay debt - Held that:- This Bench is satisfied that the Corporate Debtor is in default of liquidating its debt. The financial creditor is therefore entitled to the prayer made. They have proposed the name of Mr. Pinaki Sircar, 31/7, N C Chawdhary Road, Kolkata-700042; Email: [email protected], Contact No.: 9830011159; IP Registration No.: IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00063/2016-2017/10141 as the Insolvency Resolution Professional. The aforesaid IRP has given his consent as well as certified that he is eligible to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India and that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against him is in record.
We hereby Admit the present petition. A moratorium in terms of Section 14 shall come into effect forthwith
-
2018 (2) TMI 684 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - existence of default - Held that:- The total amount of debt granted and disbursed has been elaborately explained and for further details reference has been made to Annexure A-2 which shows that CC facility was given by disbursing ₹ 7 crores on 04.04.2017. Another facility described as LC4 A/cs account ₹ 50 crores was given and the amount was disbursed on 02.03.2015. Likewise, the amount of default has also been elaborately given along with the dates which can be ascertained by referring to Annexure A-3. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor.
Another objection raised by the Corporate Debtor is that the petition was not maintainable without joining the lead Bank would not detain us as Section 7 of the Code itself shows that a financial creditor either by itself or jointly with other financial creditor may file an application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor when a default has occurred. Therefore, there is no obligation to join the lead Bank.
A certificate of registration dated 14.09.2017 issued to Mr. Gian Chand Narang by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has been placed on record vide aforesaid diary number.According to the declaration made, by Mr. Gian Chand Narang, no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him nor he is a related party to ‘Financial Debtor’ namely NCML Industries Limited nor he is an employee of the NCML Industries Limited. Accordingly, he satisfies the requirement of Section 7(3)(b) of the Code.
Thus this petition is admitted
-
2018 (2) TMI 448 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Ways of service of notice to Corporate Debtor - notice sent along with the copy of the Petition at the Registered Office address of the Corporate Debtor and the same has been returned with the endorsement 'left' without instruction - Held that:- Petitioner is directed to serve the Corporate Debtor by way of substituted service by publishing the notice in newspapers one in English and another in vernacular having wide circulation in the area where the Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor is situated and file proof of the same. Put up on 04.01.2018 at 10.30 A.M.
-
2018 (2) TMI 447 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - whether Appellant is not a ‘Financial Creditor’? - a loan advanced against the time value of money - according to Appellant, the Time value of money to be calculated by expected future value of the Appellant’s investment in the Respondent for allowing it to continue as a “on-going concern” and to make profits. - Held that:- In the present case, the Appellant has failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that she disbursed the money has been made against ‘consideration for the time value of money’. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the Respondents borrowed the money. In absence of such evidence, the Appellant cannot claim that the loan if any given by the Appellant comes within the meaning of ‘financial debt’ in terms of sub-section (8)(a) of Section 5 of the ‘I&B Code’.
The Appellant has also failed to show that the amount has been raised by Respondent under any other transactions, such as sale or purchase agreement, having commercial effect of borrowing. In absence of any such evidence, the Appellant cannot claim that loan amount, if any given to the Respondent comes within the meaning of ‘financial debt’, as defined under sub-section (8)(f) of Section 5 of the ‘I&B Code’.
We hold that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the Appellant is not a ‘Financial Creditor’. Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 446 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Corporate insolvency process - maintainability of joint application or joint Demand Notice by the Operational Creditor - Held that:- Footnote given in Form 5 is not in consonance with the provision of Section 8 of the I & B Code, because Section 8 does not authorise joint application or joint Demand Notice by the Operational Creditor. Section 7 which deals with the financial creditor allows joint application by the financial creditor. The note provided at the end of Form V, Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 requires reconsideration by Appropriate Authorities.
This petition under Section 9 of the I & B Code cannot be filed in the representative capacity of 284 workers. The petitioner has filed this petition in the representative position of 284 employees which is not maintainable under Section 9 of the I & B Code. The operational creditor himself can file a petition regarding the debt of other persons, only in case debt is assigned or transferred to him. On this ground, the petition is not maintainable.
-
2018 (2) TMI 445 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - existence of eligible debt - Operational Creditor had provided security services to the Corporate Debtor and maintained a running account in respect of the said transaction - Held that:- This Bench is satisfied that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in making payment of the outstanding debt claimed by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor has fulfilled all the requirements of law. Therefore, CP/667/(IB)/CB/2017 is admitted and the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is ordered, which ordinarily shall get completed within 180 days, reckoning from the day this order is passed.
The moratorium is hereby declared which shall have effect from the date of this Order till the completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, for the purposes referred to in Section 14 of the I&B Code, 2016.
-
2018 (2) TMI 444 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate insolvency process - winding proceeding already initiated by the High Court is still pending - Held that:- In the present case as we find that a winding up proceeding has been passed and is pending against the appellant, we hold that the application under section 10 of I&B code at the instance of the corporate applicant is not maintainable in view of the bar imposed under Section 11(d) of I&B Code. Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 196 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Corporate insolvency procedure - Held that:- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vide its letter dated 01.01.2018 has recommended a panel of Insolvency Professionals for appointment as Insolvency Resolution Professional in compliance with Section 16(3)(a) of the Code in order to cut delay. The list of recommended Insolvency Professionals provides instant solution to the Adjudicating Authority to pick up the name and make appointment. It helps in meeting the time line given in the Code and the unnecessary time wasted firstly in asking the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to recommend the name and then to appoint such Interim Resolution Professional by Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, we appoint Mr. Sachin Sapra, email id [email protected] (Mobile No. 9910219977) as an Interim Resolution Professional. His registration number is IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00005/2016-17/10005. The aforesaid Interim Resolution Professional has no disciplinary proceeding pending against him nor anything else has been pointed out with regard to his antecedents. The Interim Resolution Professional has filed necessary declaration in accordance with the IBBI Regulations and the provisions of the Code.
In pursuance of Section 13(2) of Code, we direct that Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional shall immediately on his appointment make public announcement with regard to admission of this application under Section 7 of the Code. We also declare moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. A necessary consequence of the moratorium flows from the provisions of Section 14(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d).
|
