Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy 2021 2021 2021 (5) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws

Showing 141 to 160 of 177 Records

• 2021 (5) TMI 212 - 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:- Upon hearing submissions and perusal of the documents placed before this Adjudicating Authority, it is seen that there is clear pre-existing dispute between the parties.

  It is an evident that the Pre-existing dispute from the set of emails exchanges filed along with reply. Further, the goods supplied by operational creditor have lot of "mismatch" as highlighted in the email between the parties. A few were replaced by Applicant as reflected in the emails. The total picture emerging from pleading and documents is that there has been a lot of discussions, replacement of goods and issue of mismatch of goods as earlier as email dated 27.08.2018 onwards. The Respondent has also filed copy of email dated 22.02.2019 in respect of loss faced and dissatisfaction of customer due to mismatch of casting valves. Further, by email dated 07.03.2019, the respondent has sought clarification regarding delayed supply and replacement of wrong supply.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 211 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment of dues - Operational Creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to the demand made by operational creditor 08.10.2019, the corporate debtor sent emails on 08.08.2019 and 17.08.2019 questioning as to on what basis the claim was made from 21.07.2019 to 16.08.2019 though the work was completed as early as 21.07.2019 and thereby denied liability arising out of the second work order dated 17.07.2019. The operational creditor has not furnished the reason for the claim on the aforesaid period. The operational creditor had manipulated second log book by forging signatures and compelled the authorized person of the corporate debtor to sign in the manipulated log book - On 17.11.2020, the corporate debtor sent a reply legal notice denying the liability to the tune of ₹ 42,02,000/- as claimed by the operational creditor. Inspite of raising disputes over the second tax invoice by email communications, the operational creditor filed an affidavit on 21.01.2020 before this Tribunal stating that the corporate debtor has not raised any dispute with respondent in respect of the debt.

  Upon perusal of pleadings and documents, it is clear that there is outstanding debt due and payable by Corporate Debtor to Applicant towards hiring charges of cranes. The terms and conditions in work order do not say that only if the cranes are put to use, the hiring charges shall be paid. Once based on work order, the equipment on rental basis is availed by respondent and also acknowledged by respondent, the respondent ought to settle the outstanding dues, irrespective of the fact whether the equipment was under utilisation or not - thus the 'debt' and 'default' is proved by the Applicant.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 185 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
  

  Seeking release of attached property and to restore possession - property of Corporate Debtor who is not a financial establishment as defined under Section 2(e) WBPIDFE Act - assets of the Corporate Debtor should be kept outside the purview of sale or not - consistency of provision of Section 3 of the WBPIDFE Act with Sections 14 and 33(5) of the IBC - whether Section 14 as well as Section 33(5) of the IBC shall prevail over Section 3 of WBPIDFE Act?.

  Whether the property of Corporate Debtor who is not a financial establishment as defined under Section 2(e) WBPIDFE Act can be attached? - HELD THAT:- Under the WBPIDFE Act, the property acquired either in the name of a financial establishment or in the name ofany other person on behalf of such financial establishment can also be attached. In the present case, the property of the Corporate Debtor is attached on the allegation that Corporate Debtor is one of the Companies of Pincon Group Companies and the Pincon Group Companies had fraudulently accepted the deposits and all the money went to Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor had purchased the attached properties with the money of the depositors. In this regard, the appellant placed reliance on the findings of the designated court - There is nothing on record that Corporate Debtor had raised any objection under Section 14(3) of the WBPIDFE Actthat the properties were wrongfully attached and produced before the court. In such circumstances, we are unable to convince with the argument of Ld. counsel for the respondent that the findings of the designated court are not binding on the Corporate Debtor - thus, the properties of the corporate debtor can be attached.

  Whether High Court of Calcutta in WP No. 24110(W)of 2016 vide order dated 23.04.2019 directed that the assets of the Corporate Debtor should be kept outside the purview of sale? - HELD THAT:- High Court have not placed on record any objection which has been filed under section 14 (3) of WBPIDFE Act. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the Hon’ble High Court directed that the assets of the Corporate Debtor be kept outside the purview of sale.

  Whether the provision of Section 3 of the WBPIDFE Act is inconsistent with Sections 14 and 33(5) of the IBC. Therefore, Section 14 as well as Section 33(5) of the IBC shall prevail over Section 3 of WBPIDFE Act? - HELD THAT:- In this case, the properties of the Corporate Debtor were attached during 10.11.2017 to 17.11.2017 and after investigation DEO, WB filed charge sheet on 31.01.2018 under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of IPC and under Section 3(1)(e) of the WBPIDFE Act against 41 accused persons, including Manoranjan Roy Director of the M/s Pincon Spirits Ltd. On 16.04.2018, the registered office of M/s. Pincon Spirits Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) was sealed. Thereafter, on 26.04.2018 and 25.02.2019, various properties of M/s Pincon Spirits Ltd. were attached by the DEO, WB. Meanwhile, on 19.07.2018 initiated CIRP against M/s Pincon Spirits Ltd. Thus, admittedly, the properties of M/s Pincon Spirits Ltd. were seized and the registered office was sealed much prior to the initiation of CIRP - the moratorium has been declared after the properties were attached by the DEO, WB and produced before the Designated Court of Economic Offences - Section 14 of the IBC has no overriding effect on Section 3 of the WBPIDFE Act.

  Whether Section 33 (5) of the IBC prevails over Section 3 of the WBPIDFE Act? - HELD THAT:- No resolution plan was approved which resulted in the change in control of the Corporate Debtor, therefore, there is no bar to take action against the property of the Corporate Debtor in connection with the offence. The explanation to sub-section (2)has clarified that the words and actions against the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence would include the attachment, seizure, retention or confiscation of such property under the law applicable to the Corporate Debtor. Since the word ‘include’ issued under sub-clause 1 of the explanation, the word ‘action’ against the property of the Corporate Debtor is intended to have the widest possible amplitude. There is a clear nexus with the object of the IBC. The other part of the clarification under the explanation is found in the second sub-clause of the explanation.

  The Director of the Corporate Debtor and the property of the Corporate debtor cannot get immunity from the prosecution. Thus, the attached property, which is confiscated by the Designated Court of Economic Offences, cannot be de-attached - Now the attached property is not in possession and control of the DEO, WB. Therefore, as per the impugned order DEO, WB cannot de-attach the property which is already confiscated by the Designated Court of Economic Offences.

  The impugned order is not sustainable in law therefore, the order is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 180 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - date of default - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the respondent states that in the notice issued under SARFAESI, the date of default was mentioned as 27.11.2018. The learned counsel for the applicant states that there has been typographical error in the application and that the date of default is only 27.11.2018 - It appears that the said date 30.11.2019 is not the date of default but it is the date in which the said sum is due to the Financial Creditor. Except this description, date of default is not mentioned and some correction is seen to have made which has not been authenticated. Therefore, we hold that date of default is omitted from the relevant Column On a query, the learned counsel for the Financial Creditor has stated that the date of default is date of NPA i.e. 27.11.2018. The learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor, however maintained that the date of default is 12.11.2016. While reserving the order, this Adjudicating Authority had given opportunity for filing their respective written submissions in order to substantiate their arguments. In the above application, the "date of default" in the relevant column has not been deliberately typed by the applicant.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to cite here para 86 to 92 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) judgement in SESH NATH SINGH & ANR. VERSUS BAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND ANR. [2021 (3) TMI 1183 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that If the period from the date of institution of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act till the date of filing of the application under Section 7 of the IBC in the NCLT is excluded, the application in the NCLT is well within the limitation of three years. Even if the period between the date of the notice under Section 13(2) and date of the interim order of the High Court staying the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, on the prima facie ground of want of jurisdiction is excluded, the proceedings under Section 7 of IBC are still within limitation of three years.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 179 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of documents placed before this Adjudicating Authority, the Financial Creditor has proved existence of 'debt' and 'default' and there being no denial from the Corporate Debtor with respect to outstanding due.

  Application admitted - proposed Interim Resolution Professional appointed - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 178 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of documents, it appears that 'debt' and 'default' are proved. In the counter filed by the Corporate Debtor on 05.03.2021, it was specifically admitted to sanction the credit facilities and also to the outstanding under the loan accounts in para 9 and 10 of their counter. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor filed Additional Counter during February 2021 in which default in the loan account was categorically admitted.

  The grounds as raised by the Applicant in the present IA/167(CHE)/2021 and IA/168(CHE)/2021 do not hold much, since the affidavit not having been notarized is only a procedural irregularity and it is a curable defect. This irregularity can be rectified by the Applicant at any point of time. It is also pertinent to note here that the proviso to Section 7(5) of IBC, 2016 states that this Adjudicating Authority before rejecting the application under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 7 of IBC, 2016 shall give a notice to the Applicant to rectify the defect in the application - the Financial Creditor has proved existence of 'debt' and 'default', with respect to outstanding due against the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, this Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application stands admitted.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 177 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Validity of CIRP proceedings commenced - validity of constitution of Committee of Creditors pursuant to commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - restoration of status quo of Respondent no. 7 as on Apr 25, 2019 as if no CIRP was ever commenced - direction to Respondent no. 7 to return the amount of ₹ 2 Cr paid by the Applicant towards money received against the forward sale and purchase transaction for sale of land owned by Respondent no. 7 - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note herein that, had there been any irregularity in the admission order passed by this Adjudicating Authority in the IB Petition filed under Section 9 of the IB Code, in that event, the respondent/the then corporate debtor of CP (IB) 594 of 2018 would have approached before the Hon'ble Appellate Authority. However, the corporate debtor never approached the Appellate Authority for setting aside the admission order so passed by this Adjudicating Authority on 26.04.2019. Hence, admission order reached to its finality - It is also pertinent to mention herein that the present applicant had also filed an application, i.e. IA 802 of 2019 in CP (IB) 594 of 2018, before this Adjudicating Authority, during the pendency of CIRP, seeking direction upon the RP for accepting his claim as one of the financial creditors of the corporate debtor company. However, on hearing both sides, the said application was dismissed by this Adjudicating Authority on 07.02.2020.

  The application so filed by the applicant for recalling/quashing of the order dated 26.04.2019, along with other prayers, are not only beyond the jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority but also bad in the eye of law and is not maintainable - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 138 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD 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 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the records, it is found that the instant petition was filed on 17.02.2020. A copy of the ledger account has been attached where the last payment has been received through Bank for a sum of ₹ 5,03,366/- on 17.04.2013. The balance confirmation is a letter dated 7th September 2019.

  In the present case, the last date of the transaction is 17.04.2013 and Balance confirmation is given on 07.09.2019 i.e., beyond the period of 3 years from 17.04.2013. Hence, the claim is barred by the Law of Limitation.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 137 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - RP failed to perform its functions properly - HELD THAT:- Based on the inspection dated 10.01.2020, the applicant has taken possession of the machineries in question and to that effect applicant never protested/raised objection - In that event, admittedly, in view of filing additional affidavit, no prayer of the instant application is required to be redressed. However, during the course of argument, on a number of occasions, the applicant had argued that some parts of the machineries were missing, However, neither the applicant nor the respondent could produce any supporting documents, i.e., list of inspection and/or list of inventory, etc., made during the time of taking possession. Further, it is also a matter of record that on a number of occasions, this Adjudicating Authority made observations/directions of the parties to produce inventories, if any prepared, but both sides have failed to produce.

  This Adjudicating Authority is not in a position to draw any conclusion. More so, when the applicant, by way of additional affidavit, submitted that except prayer at para "E", as said above, other prayers need not be redressed. Hence, nothing remains in the instant application - Application not maintainable and is rejected.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 136 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Corporate Debtor not only failed to hand over the possession of the flats till date but also failed to return the monies invested by the Petitioners - Financial Creditors - Existence of debt and dispute - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor has clearly defaulted in handing over the possession of the flats to the Petitioners within the mentioned period of the said Agreement and also, defaulted in returning the monies of the petitioners when failed to give possession of the flats. The Bench has no hesitation in concluding that there is a debt and that the Corporate Debtor has committed a default and therefore, it is a fit case for admission.

  This Bench, on perusal of the documents filed by the Petitioner, is of the view that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repaying the financial assistance availed. The order of the Consumer Redressal Forum, Rajasthan, directing the Corporate Debtor to deliver the flats, payment of interest and execution of Sale Deed in favor of Petitioner further confirm the admitted position of debt and default by the Corporate Debtor - the existence of debt and default is reasonably established by the Petitioner as a major constituent for admission of a Petition under Section 7 of the Code.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 133 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - pecuniary jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor has proved existence of 'debt' and 'default'. Moreover, this application was filed on 30.09.2019. The pecuniary jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority, at the time of filing this application was debt due Rs. one lakh and above. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to adjudicate this petition. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor is also within the State of Tamilnadu, hence this Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction. The alleged debt due is between the period from 01.04.2018 to 17.07.2019. Hence, it is well within the period of limitation.

  The Corporate Debtor has made part payment towards outstanding. The last payment of a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- was pending. The Corporate Debtor issued cheques and failed to honour the same.

  This Adjudicating Authority is inclined to admit the Application as has been filed by the Operational Creditor and consequently Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 116 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Financial Creditors - Finance Lease - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On careful examination of the relevant clauses of the Master Rental Agreement (MRA), the transaction takes the form of financial debt in respect of which there is an amount of the liability in respect of the lease which is deemed as a 'financial lease' under the Accounting Standards (AS) - ICAI. Further, as per Section 5(8)(e) a 'financial debt' includes receivables sold or discounted other than any receivables sold on non-recourse basis - the amount due to the Applicant Bank constitutes a 'financial debt' which was disbursed to the successor for the time value of money.

  The contention of the Respondent rejecting the claim of the Applicant Bank do not hold good in view of the reference to the nature of rental agreement which is a financial lease agreement in substance then in form, which is capable of being assigned as per the Clause 26 of the agreement and consequent upon purchase of the rent receivable contained therein the Applicant Bank has acquired the right of the financial creditor as succession in interest - The rejection of the claim by the Respondent in respect of Term Loan II is hereby set aside and since the claim of the Applicant Bank in relation to Term Loan II qualifies to be a 'financial debt', it is directed that the Respondent to admit the claim of the Applicant Bank in relation to Term Loan II and treat the Applicant Bank as a 'Financial Creditor' in terms of the provisions of IBC, 2016.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 115 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor claims relief from the rigors of the Code triggered on account of a stale and time barred debt - HELD THAT:- This application is filed only for review of the order passed by this Adjudicating Authority on 19.09.2019; review of the order passed by this Adjudicating Authority which is beyond the scope of the IBC. Furthermore, if this Applicant was aggrieved by the order passed by this Adjudicating Authority, the Applicant/erstwhile Board of Directors should have gone for an appeal against the same before the Hon'ble NCLAT.

  The Applicant/erstwhile Board of Director has filed an appeal against this order before the Hon'ble NCLAT and sought 10 days' time to settle the entire claim due and payable to the Financial Creditor. In spite of the time being sanctioned by the Hon'ble NCLAT, the Applicant/erstwhile Board of Directors has not settled the claim. Thereafter, the Applicant herein had also filed Civil Appeal No. 2621 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, the same was withdrawn without any liberty - there is no merit in the aforementioned relief sought for.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 114 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor has proved existence of debt and default. Moreover, this application was filed on 04.11.2019. The pecuniary jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority, at the time of filing this application was debt due one lakh and above. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to adjudicate this petition. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor is also within the State of Tamilnadu, hence this Adjudication has jurisdiction. The alleged debt due is between the period from 01.04.2018 to 17.07.2019. Hence, it is well within the period of limitation.

  This Adjudicating Authority is inclined to admit the Application as has been filed by the Operational Creditor and consequently Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 113 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not before issuance of demand notice - HELD THAT:- A conjoint reading of all the e-mails exchanged between the parties as well as the respective invoices supra, it comes to the fore that there exist a dispute between the parties before the issuance of the Demand Notice and the said dispute is still in existence.

  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] held that the 'existence of dispute' and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-existing i.e. it must exist before the receipt of the Demand Notice or Invoice as the case may be.

  Thus, it is evident that there is a genuine dispute between the parties and the defence raised by the Corporate Debtor on the grounds of existence of a dispute is real and not spurious, hypothetical, illusory or misconceived - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 112 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Applicants are ‘decree holders’ and not as allottees in a real estate project - project is a joint venture by the Corporate Debtor and M/s. Cherupushpam Films (P) Ltd - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- In the decision of Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Innoventive Industries V. ICICI Bank &another [2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT], it is held that for initiation of CIRP under Sub Section 4 of Section 7 of the Code,2016, the adjudicating authority’ on receipt of application under Sub Section (2) is required to ascertain existence of default from the records of Information Utility or on the basis of other evidence furnished by Financial Creditor under Sub Section 3.

  Whether the Application was filed under Section 7 of I&B Code,2016 by the Applicants in the capacity of Allottees of Apartments or on the basis of Arbitral Award as Decree Holders? - HELD THAT:- If the builder fails to deliver the possession of the real estate project, they agreed to pay penalty of ₹ 25/- per square feet to the Applicants. Here, the debt was disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money which includes an amount raised from an allottees under a real estate project, and this transaction has the commercial effect of a borrowing.

  Whether the Application is barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- The Applicants have entered into an Agreement of Sale and subsequently sale deed was also executed, which has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of this Application. In the present case, the Corporate Debtor has not delivered the possession of the real estate property. The default has committed only when possession was scheduled to be delivered. Since the default had occurred over three years before the date of filing of Section 7 Application, the Application is a time barred Application.

  Whether the Application is maintainable against the Corporate Debtor/builder alone since the project is a joint venture by the Corporate Debtor and M/s. Cherupushpam Films (P) Ltd? - HELD THAT:- Both the parties would be jointly responsible for and participate in the construction or development. The terms and conditions with respect to institutional areas and common areas also reflect that the cost would be shared between both the parties at the rate of 60 and 40 substantiates that it is a ‘Joint Venture’ Agreement. Thus the Agreement entered between the Corporate Debtor and M/s. Cherupushpam Films Pvt Ltd dated 08.12.2003 reflects a commercial transaction in the nature of a ‘Joint Venture’ wherein there is division of profits - this Tribunal observe that in such kind of a Joint Venture Project, both the parties, if they are a Corporate should be jointly treated to be one for the purpose of initiation of CIRP.

  The Applicants have failed to succeed in this Application - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 111 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Liquidator of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - seeking an order that the existing Resolution Professional to act as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor for the purpose of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- Apparently on reading all the pleadings and submissions made by the respective Learned Counsels, it is very clear that, CoC members and the Resolution Professional were at loggerheads. There was no co-operation or co-ordination between them. Both parties are throwing so much of allegations against each other. However, this Adjudicating Authority does not want to go into the merits of the conduct and the lapses, if any, on the part of the Resolution Professional.

  Since the Financial Creditors together holding 96.55% voting rights of the Corporate Debtor, has raised serious allegations against the conduct in which the CIRP against RP, it cannot be buried under the carpet. Hence, the Registry shall forward this order along with the copy of the application filed in IA/650/IB/2020 to IBBI, to verify if there are any lapses on the part of the RP in process of the CIRP - Since there are allegations by the majority of the CoC members against this particular Applicant/Resolution Professional, this RP is not appointed as a Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor.

  More than 330 days of the CIRP period was ended on 17.01.2021 and no Resolution Plan or any proposal is pending, and also the company is not a going concern, considering all these facts, it is ordered that the Corporate Debtor herein shall be liquidated - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 110 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Financial Creditors - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor in its reply raised defects regarding the Authorization letter, jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Tribunal and Computation of the Default amount which the financial Creditor vide its reply affidavit dated 16.02.2021 has replied to all the objections raised. Mere plain reading of the provision under section 7 of IBC shows that in order to initiate CIRP Under Section 7 the applicant is required to establish that there is a financial debt and that a default has been committed in respect of that financial debt. That while dealing with the said matter the Financial creditor has clearly established that a financial debt in form of Channel finance Loan has been advanced to the Corporate Debtor which can be clearly substantiated by the Confirmation of balance letter dated 18.09.2017 wherein, the Corporate Debtor confirmed the remaining balance of the said loan to the Financial Creditor.

  The Tribunal on a keen examination of the application and perusal of the documents submitted by both the parties can clearly substantiate that the attached receipts issued by the Financial Creditor indicating repayment of ₹ 3 Crore are towards the Hindalco account as dealer code HIN0001 has been clearly stated on the attached receipts. Whereas, no receipt regarding payment towards Vedanta account has been annexed by the Corporate Debtor.

  The documents submitted by the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor clearly substantiate the Financial Creditor's claim that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted on repayment of loan amount - this tribunal after giving careful consideration to the entire matter, hearing the arguments of the parties and upon appreciation of the documents placed on record to substantiate the claim, this Tribunal admits this petition and initiates CIRP on the Corporate Debtor with immediate effect - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 109 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(2) read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant submitted that the Applicant/RP is not willing to continue as Liquidator. In this circumstance, this Adjudicating Authority as per Section 34(5) of the IBC, 2016 hereby directs the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to propose the name of another Insolvency Professional to be appointed as a Liquidator and IBBI as per Section 34(6) of the IBC, 2016, shall propose the name of another Insolvency Professional along with written consent from the Insolvency Professional in the specified form within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.

  Post for further orders on 26.04.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 107 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH
  

  Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - appeal pending before the Hon'ble NCLAT - liquidation sought on the ground that the only asset of the Corporate Debtor is a fixed deposit of ₹ 3.5 Crore - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the CoC has resolved by 100% voting share to liquidate the Corporate Debtor as the Corporate Debtor has no immovable assets. Be that as it may, it will not be justifiable to pass an order of liquidation at this stage till the Hon'ble NCLAT takes a final view on the appeal filed. This view is being taken in view of the fact that the only asset of the Corporate Debtor is a fixed deposit which can be withdrawn and distributed within a short period of time, and it would be a tad difficult to reverse the clock once the liquidation order is passed. If further action is taken to distribute the fixed deposit by liquidating the same, then it will also have the effect of rendering the appeal otiose.

  The liquidation of the Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed at this stage - application dismissed.

  ---

1 ....456789