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 161 to 177 of 177 Records

• 2021 (5) TMI 106 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH
  

  Trespassing the property of Corporate Debtor as held by Liquidator - Case of appellant is that Police Authorities failed to provide sufficient security to the Liquidator - HELD THAT:- It is surprising to see that the Police Authorities who are duty bound to protect the life and property of the citizens and prevent the crimes, have failed to provide sufficient security to the Liquidator in protecting the assets of the Corporate Debtor, by taking appropriate action against the miscreants and trespassers against whom complaints after complaints have been lodged by the Liquidator, which has encouraged them to repeat their illegal actions. The local Police should have acted quickly in the matter even on the first complaint which would have been caused a deterrent effect on the miscreants and their associates.

  The need to file the present application seeking directions from this Adjudicating Authority has arisen because the Police Authorities have not been able to help the applicant in spite of requests having been made to provide security to the Private Security Guards deployed by the Liquidator at the site of the factory to protect the properties of the Corporate Debtor (in Liquidation). It may be informed that the Liquidator has been performing his statutory obligations and the Police Authorities are supposed to provide him necessary help and protection.

  The respondents i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur and Officer-in-Charge of Bhabanipur Police Station are directed to take immediate action against the miscreants who had trespassed the premises and caused fire or theft in the premises and a report in this regard shall be placed before this Adjudicating Authority through an Officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police on the next date of hearing, i.e. 11.06.2021.

  Application listed for hearing.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 105 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH
  

  Seeking approval of this Tribunal to liquidate the Company - HELD THAT:- The requirement of the provisions of Section 59, read with the relevant rules, have been satisfied by the Liquidator. Since there is no liability on the Company and no fraud has been found against it either by the Auditors in their report or by the Liquidator, particularly, in the absence of any response from the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal and the Official Liquidator, the dissolution of the Company Lipika Collection Private Limited is ordered - application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 104 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH
  

  Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - no Resolution Plan received and the CoC by 100% voting share approved liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- This is a case where no Resolution Plan was received and the period of CIRP has expired on 14.06.2020. Therefore, there is no alternative but to order the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

  The liquidation of Corporate Debtor is permitted - application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 82 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI
  

  Holding of meeting of CoC - validity of direction Resolution Professional to call for a meeting of the ‘Committee of Creditors of Corporate Debtor’ - the members of the meeting were, who originally constituted the ‘CoC’ during the year 2017 - validity of calling of meeting of those CoC soon after the order of admission of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, without taking into account the present status of the Financial and Operational Creditors and claims filed to that extent - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal is of the considered view that the ‘Resolution Professional’ has no ‘Adjudicatory Power’ under the I & B Code, 2016 and further that when once the ‘Committee of Creditors’ is/was formed, the ‘Resolution Professional’ cannot change the ‘Committee of Creditors’. Suffice it for this Tribunal to make a pertinent mention that the Resolution Professional/1st Respondent cannot constitute a ‘Committee of Creditors’ afresh, in negation of the earlier constituted ‘Committee of Creditors’.

  This Tribunal on going through the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority comes to a consequent conclusion that the observation made inter-alia to the affair that ‘CoC’ constituted presently by the IRP/RP in derogation of the order passed by it shall stands suspended and shall not exercise any of the powers as provided under the Provisions of IBC, 2016 and the directions issued to the IRP/RP to comply with the directions therein within a period of 10 days from the date of the order.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 78 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , SPECIAL BENCH , MUMBAI BENCH
  

  Dissolution of the Corporate Debtor - Sections 54 and 60 (5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It appears that the affairs of the Corporate Debtor have been wound up and its assets have been completely liquidated. The documents on record are satisfying that the liquidation is not with intent to defraud any person. The bank account for the purpose of liquidation has been closed. The above facts and circumstances indicate that due process of liquidation, as per extant provisions and in the manner indicated in the Code and Regulations, have been followed by the Liquidator to liquidate the assets of Company and the realized amounts have also been distributed among the respective claimants. The liquidation process has been duly completed as per the provisions of the Code. Thus, it would be just and equitable for this Authority to dissolve the Corporate Debtor. No party is going to be adversely affected thereby. In view of the above the Corporate Debtor deserves to be dissolved.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 66 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD 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 - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Whether the period of limitation gets extended upon acknowledgement of debt or not is the point completely been answered by the Hon'ble NCLAT in case of Kishanlal Likhmichand Bothra Vs. Canara Bank [2021 (4) TMI 50 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI]. It has been held by Hon'ble NCLAT that we have no difficulty to state that Section 18 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under IBC and that if there is acknowledgement of debt in the balance sheets or the OTS proposal, the period of limitation would get extended if the acknowledgement is made before the period of limitation expires.

  Thus, the date of default is 27.12.2014 thereafter by way of OTS, firstly on date 09.11.2015 and thereafter on 29.01.2016, the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the date (before expiry of period of three years from the date of default). This application is filed on 12.02.2019, i.e. three years from the last date of acknowledgement of the debt. Hence, we hold that it is filed well within the period of limitation - Financial Creditor established that an amount of debt of ₹ 5,99,73,482/- is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has committed default failed in paying the same. This application is defect filed within the limitation. Hence, we admit the Corporate Debtor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 65 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
  

  Seeking directions of this Tribunal to direct the Respondent (RP) to allow the participation of the Applicant to introduce the Resolution Plan in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor - Section 60(5) of the IBC - HELD THAT:- The CoC has not considered the proposal submitted by the Applicant in toto but has rejected the resolution plan of the Applicant on technical grounds. The apprehension of the Applicant is that the RP is supporting the plan of the single Resolution Plan received earlier and has taken all steps to see that the overall plan was not seen by the CoC. The idea of giving an opportunity to the Applicant to submit his plan by paying the double amount of EMD is to maximize the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor company as per the intentions of the IBC, 2016. Obviously this has not happened.

  This Tribunal disposes of this application with directions to the RP to place the overall Resolution Plan of the Applicant before the CoC once again for its informed decision on this issue keeping in view the objectives of the IBC, 2016.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 63 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Condonation of delay in filing application - fresh claim in CIRP - period of 90 days as prescribed under Regulation 12(2) of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to mention herein that the Resolution Plan has already been received by the CoC as apprised by the RP and it is at the final stage of approval of the CoC (as per RP). At this belated stage, if such types of applications are allowed, the Resolution Plans already received by the CoC from the prospective Resolution Applicants, may get failed, as those are filed on the basis of Information Memorandum (IM). The prospective Resolution Applicants submitted their Resolution Plan on the basis of their financial capacity and availability of funds. There is every likelihood that, if the claims of the different creditors are being accepted in a phase manner and/or on such belated stage, that too after the stipulated time, so provided for submitting claims, in that event, the Resolution Plans can never get materialized and there would be no resolution of Corporate Debtor which is main object of the IB Code, more so, when CIRP is to be completed in a time bound manner. If such claim is accepted, then the Resolution Applicants have to make corrections in their plans, that apart, RP has to make corrections in the IM and its report, correction in the stakeholders list, etc., for which RP has to take permission from this Adjudicating Authority, which may further delay the CIRP.

  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, [2018 (10) TMI 312 - SUPREME COURT] unequivocally held that " the entire time period within which the CIRP ought to be completed is strictly mandatory in nature and cannot he extended. It relied on the primary objective of the Code, which is to ensure a timely resolution process for a CD and principles of statutory interpretation to hold that the literal language of section 12 mandates strict adherence to the time frame it lays down. To enable this adherence to the outer time limit provided in the Code, the court also held that the model timeline provided in Regulation 40A of the CIRP Regulations should be followed "as closely as possible".

  There is no merit in the instant application - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 23 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and Default - time limitation - Service of notice - hearing not attended - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the ‘Appellant’ had come out with a categorical assertion that the notice was served upon the Respondent on 03.02.2020 and later 08.01.2021 and affidavit of service to that effect was filed before th Adjudicating Authority. When that be the fact situation, when the Respondent had failed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority then, it is duty bound to record the absence/ there being no representation of the Respondent, to hold that ‘service was held sufficient’ and to proceed further, as per Rule 49 of the NCLT Rule, 201₹ 6 under the caption ‘Ex parte hearing and disposal’.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present case the debt fell due on 01.02.2017 being the date of last invoice raised by the ‘Appellant/Operational Creditor. The ‘Application’ was filed before the Adjudicating Authority in the year 2019 which is well within the period of Limitation. In reality, the Adjudicating Authority had committed an error in making an observation that the ‘Application’ suffered from ‘ Delay and Latches’ and the same is clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law, in the considered opinion of this ‘Tribunal’.

  This ‘Tribunal’ taking note of the fact that the Director of the Respondent through email on 15.11.2017 had assured the ‘Appellant’ that the Respondent would making the payment towards the dues on monthly instalment basis (since the Respondent was passing through financial crisis) and further only partly settled the dues till February, 2018, and keeping in mind of the vital fact that the court notice was served upon the Respondent on 03.02.2020 and subsequently on 08.01.2021 - this Tribunal comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) had committed an error in issuing slew of directions to the ‘Registrar of Companies’, Bengaluru to examine whether the corporate Debtor had complied with the statutory requirement and to take appropriate action etc., and suffice it for this ‘Tribunal’ to make a relevant observation in the present ‘Appeal’ that such directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be countenanced in the eye of Law.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 18 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH
  

  Requirement of submission of Resolution Plan in the name of the Corporate Debtor - eligibility to submit the Resolution Plan in view of the Govt. of India Gazette Notification dated 26th June, 2020 - HELD THAT:- As per the IBBI Regulations, the Corporate Debtor cannot submit a Resolution Plan in the CIR Process. When this issue was argued, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is ready to submit the Resolution Plan in the name of the applicant in his individual capacity.

  Eligibility to submit the Resolution Plan in view of the Govt. of India Gazette Notification dated 26th June, 2020 - HELD THAT:- Considering the revised criteria laid down by the MSME as per Notification dated 26.6.2020, the Corporate Debtor qualified as a MSME under the revised norms. However, the notification was issued after admission of the application for initiation of CIRP considering the covid 19 pandemic in the country. The Resolution Professional further states that the Corporate Debtor meets the statutory requirements and revision in the MSME criteria and the Resolution Professional is ready to accept the Resolution Plan from the applicant, if a direction to that effect is granted by this Tribunal - In SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Apex Court made it clear that I&B Code envisages maximisation of value of Assets of the Corporate Debtor so that they are efficiently runs as going concerns and in turn will promote entrepreneurship. The liquidation can be ordered as a last resort if there is no Resolution Plan and the Resolution Plans submitted are not fulfilling the criteria laid down therein.

  Application is disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 14 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Condonation of delay of 381 days in relation to the main Application filed seeking inter alia to institute and enquire into the conduct of the Resolution Professional - seeking declaration that CIRP culminating with the acceptance of the Resolution Plan of M/s. Hi-tech Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. as null and void and to direct to restart of the CIR process - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the Resolution Plan itself has been approved by this Tribunal against which no appeal seems to have been preferred and even in relation to the rejection of the Applicants being declared as ineligible under Section 29(A) of IBC, 2016 even though Appeals have been preferred up to the highest Court of the land, no worthwhile relief has been granted to the Applicants herein.

  A Resolution Plan which stood approved by this Tribunal as per the averments contained by the 1st Respondent has been fully implemented in as much as the claimants have been settled as envisaged under the Resolution Plan. Pertaining to the allegations as made against the conduct of the Resolution Professional, it is required to be noted that the appropriate Authority for consideration of the same is the Regulator viz., IBBI, if at all the Applicants have any grievance, the same is required to be made with the IBBI in the capacity as a Regulator and not before this Tribunal so that if it is found true, appropriate action can be taken against the conduct of the Resolution Professional, who conducted the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

  There are no sufficient cause being given in the Application seeking for the condonation of delay of 381 days other than merely stating that due to administrative reasons, there has been a delay - application for COD dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 13 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CUTTACK 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:- Pleadings are completed. This application is filed by Mr. Bishwajeet Bhaskar, who has been authorised by the Board resolution dated 29th May, 2019 to represent the applicant. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan in the form of Inter Corporate Deposit was given under an ICD Agreement dated 10.03.2010 for a sum of ₹ 2,50,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, by M/s. Wardha Power Corporation - The Corporate Debtor is party to the said deed of assignment. The loan ought to have been repaid by the Corporate Debtor, which they failed. The date of the default as per the details provided in the application is 01.03.2019. As per the application total sum of ₹ 5,29,83,826/- is due and payable by Corporate Debtor.

  The debt and default are proved. The applicant herein has proposed name of Ms. Varalakshmi Narala to act as Interim Resolution Professional - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 12 - 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 - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor has proved the existence of an 'Operational debt' and its 'default' on the part of the Corporate Debtor and in the absence of any objection being raised by the Corporate Debtor, we are of the considered view that the Corporate Debtor has committed 'default' in the repayment of the 'Operational debt' to the Operational Creditor and in the said circumstances we are constrained to initiate the CIRP in relation to the Corporate Debtor - Further in relation to the 'Pecuniary Jurisdiction' even though the 'Threshold Limit' has been raised to ₹ 1 Crore as and from 24.03.2020 by virtue of a Notification issued under Section 4 of IBC, 2016, as regards the present Application, it is seen that the present Application has been filed on 23.01.2020, which is well before the Notification effected in increasing the threshold limit from ₹ 1 lakh to ₹ 1 Crore as on and from 24.03.2020 and as such this Tribunal has got the 'Pecuniary Jurisdiction' to entertain this Petition, as filed by the Operational Creditor.

  The Petition, as filed by the Operational Creditor, is required to be admitted under Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016 - Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 11 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Seeking direction upon the Responded to consider the offer of the Applicant in a time bound and transparent manner - seeking declaration that the sale of metal scraps and sheds of the Company in Liquidation as null and void - seeking to stay the process of Private Sale of the assets of the Company in Liquidation till further orders by this Hon'ble Tribunal - seeking to grant status quo qua sale of sheds by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it is found that reserve price of the Surat material, scrap and sheds was fixed at ₹ 168 crores which the Liquidator succeeded in selling in Private Sale on the price higher than the reserve price in last failed auction at ₹ 168.11 crores. It is also to be mentioned herein that the reserve price is reflected in the Second Amendment to the Advertisement in inviting EoIs at page 75 of IA 136 of 2021 to the tune of ₹ 168 crores and its asset description and price can be seen from page 71-72 of the reply of the Liquidator, wherein the cost of ships and vessel under construction is included in the reserve price as ₹ 121 crores. Furthermore, Applicant of IA 238 of 2021 has paid total ₹ 169.11 crores i.e. higher than the reserve price.

  On perusal of the record, it is found that the delivery note was executed on 07.12.2020 and the final transfer was made after passing the order of Private Sale. Hence, the allegation that the Liquidator has entered for Private Sale prior to the permission granted by this Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable, in as much as, on 28.11.2020 no transfer has taken place. That apart, Liquidator has given the delivery note only on 07.12.2020 i.e. after getting the permission of Private Sale. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the material was also sold above the Reserve Price as per Regulation 33 of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016. Hence, there appears to be no irregularity.

  Application not maintainable.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 10 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Revision of Resolution Plan - exclusion of time period from the date of rejection of the Applicant's request by the RBI i.e. August 19, 2020 till the date of order of this Tribunal, from the calculation of the timelines envisaged under the approved resolution plan - seeking to enable the applicant to comply with the implementation of the Resolution Pan approved - HELD THAT:- It is seen that what sought for by the Applicant is not a modification of the Resolution Plan which was approved by this Tribunal on 20.07.2020; the Applicant has only sought for the change in the funds infusion mechanism and change in the shareholding pattern. It is also pertinent to observe that none of the stakeholders, including the Monitoring Committee, have raised any objections to the revisal as sought for by the Applicant herein.

  The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Arvindh Pandian, appearing on behalf of R1/Monitoring Committee categorically states that "There is no bar for ARC to participate as Resolution Applicant". Furthermore, there is no change or modification regarding allocation of funds. The stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor are not affected by this change of infusion of fund sought by the Applicant. The approved Resolution Plan can be implemented in toto. This application seeks for change of shareholding pattern, and infusion of funds, and takeover of debt, between the Resolution Applicants. Since there is no bar as per RBI guidelines and further stakeholders are not affected, this application may be allowed - keeping in mind the preamble to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, this Adjudicating Authority deems it fit to approve the revisions in the Approved Resolution Plan as sought for by the Applicant in order to protect the best interest of all the stake holders of the Corporate Debtor.

  Accordingly, revision of the resolution plan as regards the amended shareholding pattern necessitated on account of the changed infusion mechanics and the assignment of the debts as observed herein above earlier is permitted to be carried out without affecting the rights of the stakeholders to the resolution process, which includes achieving resolution for the Corporate Debtor and value maximization of its assets as well as the interest of stakeholders - no material terms of the Approved Resolution Plan are sought to be altered and all terms of the Approved Resolution Plan in relation to the rights of the stakeholders are preserved without any modification and all statutory requirements would be complied with for implementation of the Approved Resolution Plan.

  In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, this Adjudicating Authority hereby exclude the period between 19.08.2020 (rejection of request of UVARC for equity infusion by RBI) and the date of passing this order stands excluded from the timelines for implementing the approved resolution plan in the revised form - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 6 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH
  

  Seeking prohibition from invoking Bank Guarantee given by the applicant - seeking restraint on respondent No. 2 from remitting an amount of ₹ 1,40,42,898/- to respondent No. 1 - HELD THAT:- It is the fact that the Corporate Debtor has executed BG bearing No. 151331BGP00535 (ANNEXURE-3, Page 146) in favour of respondent No. 1 to the tune of ₹ 1,40,42,898/- issued by IDBI, which was valid till 30.07.2016. It was extended from time to time and it is valid till 31st March 2021, as the Adjudicating Authority has extended the same vide order dated 23.12.2020.

  When Completion Certificate is issued by NEA, whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to invoke PBG executed by the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- NEA has given Completion Certificate to the applicant even though there are minor pending works as claimed by the applicant and it is also the fact that the project is in commercial operation by NEA - It is further, observed that respondent No. 1 has invoked BG, even though NEA has not resorted to similar invocation - It is true that PBGs are not included under section 14 of the I&B Code. However, we have to go into the facts of the case before deciding the issue in question. In the present case NEA has given Completion Certificate to the applicant even though there are minor pending works as claimed by the applicant and it is also the fact that the project is in commercial operation by NEA.

  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2016 (5) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT], observed that every case has to be decided with reference to the facts of the case involved therein.

  Thus, it becomes clear that PBG or regular BG involves only compensation payable to the party, which suffered losses. In the present case it is the contention of the applicant that in absence of invocation of BG by NEA in terms of contract dated 09.09.2011, the question that has to be decided is, can respondent No. 1 invoke BG executed by the Corporate Debtor. Respondent No. 1 has not pointed out that NEA has invoked the BG issued to them. In such case, whether it is correct on the part of respondent No. 1 to invoke BG issued by the applicant, more so when the Corporate Debtor is under CIRP, which certainly result into erosion of value of assets of the Corporate Debtor.

  Even though the subject matter is PBG, which is not covered under moratorium, but finally any BG is reduced to financial terms. Further, each BG has to be dealt with on merits of each case as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others - thus, invocation of BG by respondent No. 1 against the Corporate Debtor appears to be farfetched. In the instant case, the contention of respondent No. 1 that PBG is not covered under moratorium may not hold good.

  Application restraining respondent No. 1 from invoking Bank Guarantee is allowed - respondent No. 1 are directed to crystallise residuary works, if any, in financial terms and may file claim with the Resolution Professional in this regard - application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 5 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU 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:- As the Respondent was willing to settle the claim of the Petitioner, the Company Petition was earlier disposed of by an Order dated 18.01.2021, by directing the Parties to settle the issue amicably between themselves failing liberty was granted to the Petitioner to approach the Adjudicating Authority with appropriate Petition. Accordingly, the Respondent vide its letter dated 25.01.2021 by inter alia stating that it could not pay its outstanding liabilities due to cash crunch. However, the Respondent failed to pay its admitted debt despite its best efforts and thus filed IA No. 92 of 2021 by seeking to initiate CIRP as prayed for.

  The Debt and Default in question are not disputed by the Respondent - Application allowed - moratorium declared.

  ---

1 ....56789