Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy 2020 2020 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 1 to 20 of 1519 Records

• 2020 (12) TMI 1353 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
  

  Striking of name of the company by the ROC - time limitation - petition has been filed after a gap of three years from the date of striking of name of the company - HELD THAT:- The Company which was struck off on 30th June, 2017 is not engaged in any business right from the date of its incorporation and the Income tax Returns filed show losses as submitted by the Counsel for the Income tax Department.

  In the facts and circumstances recorded herein, there does not appear any grounds for ordering the restoration of the name of the company in the Register of the Companies. The Company appears to be a shell Company. The application is devoid of merits and filed to misuse the judicial process.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1349 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD
  

  Preservation and refund of the moneys realized under the PBGs - wrongful trading under section 66 of I&B Code - misconduct during corporate insolvency resolution process under section 70 of the Code - false representation to creditors under section 73 of the Code - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear that the invocation of BGs by MEL vide its letter dated 18.10.2019, stating that the Applicant herein has failed to perform its obligations in terms of the agreements, is completely in terms of the above referred clause which was duly agreed to by the parties to the contract - Since the irrevocable BGs were invoked much prior to initiation of CIRP, this Adjudicating Authority cannot sit over the BGs already invoked at this juncture, more so in view of clause 2 of the BGs.

  The prayer is accordingly answered in the negative, holding that the invocation of BGs by MEL vide its letter dated 18.10.2019 is proper.

  Seeking to take cognizance of fraud and wrongful trading - section 66 of the Code - HELD THAT:- It is clear from a bare reading of the Section 66 of the Code that it only empowers the IRP/RP to prefer an Application against the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority finds that the Applicant herein is not vested with any authority to seek the prayer under Section 66 of the code.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1347 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay of the impugned order as regards making the payment of IRP costs - Appellant says that the direction in clause 4 is capable of being construed as direction against original Corporate Debtor, ‘Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Limited’ - HELD THAT:- Prima facie it appears that the Resolution Applicant has been treated as the Corporate Debtor but that would be the subject of determination when the matter is heard. The tone and tenor of the aforesaid clause 4 is bound to raise the apprehension in the mind of the original Corporate Debtor that this direction has been passed against it and in the event of non-compliance the consequences as spelt out in clause 5 of para 68 may ensue.

  List the appeal along with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1038 of 2020 ‘for admission (after notice)’ on 22nd January, 2021.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1346 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  IRP costs or not - usage charges for the use of slurry pipeline for running the Corporate Debtor as going concern during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process period of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- List the matter ‘for admission (after notice)’ on 22nd January, 2021 at 12:00 Noon.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1344 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD
  

  Condonation of delay of 358 days in filing petition under Section 9 of the I&B Code - HELD THAT:- The said lA was dismissed on 25.09.2020, as not maintainable. However, due to inadvertence, the instant petition is remained unheard. Though, admittedly there was delay’ of 358 days, it had to be dismissed along with IA 626 of 2020. It has come to our knowledge only today.

  The instant IB Petition is dismissed as time barred.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1340 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI COURT – IV
  

  Right to file reply - Seeking time for filing reply - HELD THAT:- On 03.11.2020, Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor had undertaken to file reply within two weeks till date no reply is filed and seeks further time. As a last chance five days time is given to file reply, failing which, right to file reply will be closed. Rejoinder, if any, within five days thereafter, with copy in advance to the other side.

  List on 14.01.2021.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1339 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
  

  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:- Considering the format and particulars required to be given in the format if the Application is complete, it is required to be admitted unless the Corporate Debtor shows Pre-existing dispute. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal further held that the dispute raised in this case was that there was no dealing between the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor, that there was no agreement. It was however, mentioned in the reply that it there was a dispute with the branch office and that they wanted to verify the transaction. The Bank Statement of the Operational Creditor was also seen and it was found that various payments of more than Rs.3 Crores were stated to have been made from the outstanding dues and for a small amount of Rs. 21,07,916/- , the Operational Creditor was required to move to the Adjudicating Authority.

  The application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, M/s Ambient Computronics Pvt.Ltd. is hereby admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1334 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD
  

  Seeking to set aside the attachment of the property of the corporate debtor by the respondent (E.D.) - whether NCLT can set aside the order passed by Enforcement Directorate? - HELD THAT:- It is clear that this Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction under section 60(5) and/or 32A(2) of the IB Code or under Rule 11 of the NCLT, to quash and/or set aside the order so passed by a Competent Authority of Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA. This Adjudicating Authority is not vested with the power of judicial review over administrative action or ¡s sitting as an Appellate Authority for the order so passed by the Competent Authority.

  Section 32A of the IBC does not envisages any right upon this Adjudicating Authority to interfere in order passed by some Competent Authority. For this purpose, Applicant may approach the Appellate/Higher Authority of the concerned Competent Authority, who has passed the order in question. In view of this, it is opined that the Applicant may put forward his grievances before the concerned authority, who has passed the order and/or their Higher/Appellate Authority, as the case may be.

  There are no merit in the Application, hence, the instant application is not maintainable - application dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1325 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  Issuance of status-quo order in relation to the pending Applications filed under Section 7 of IBC - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not issued any Stay on the Ordinance. The financial creditors in class want to fulfill the requisites of the Ordnance. The Corporate debtor did not place any record on its Website and claims privacy. The information which could be available on Website of the RERA is not sufficient for the Financial Creditors in Class to fulfil the requirement of the Ordinance. Consequently, the right to the property of the Financial Creditor in Class cannot be protected, as the officious remedy available to them will be curtailed.

  The Corporate Debtor is directed to provide the information about the 100 number of Allottees or 1/10th of total number of the Allottees of the project, whichever is less, excluding those with whom settlement has happened. The information to be provided by the CD to the financial creditors in class shall include the names, address, Telephone/Mobile numbers/e-Mails of the allottees of the project, which is the subject matter of the application - List the matter on 18.2.2021.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1324 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Seeking substantive consolidation of the Corporate Debtor - assets and liabilities deemed to be assets and liabilities of all the consolidated Corporate Debtors - appointment of a common Resolution Professional be made in order to carry out the obligations and functions of a Resolution Professional - constitution of common Committee of Creditors for the Corporate Debtor and the Respondents Nos. 2-6 - formulation of comprehensive Resolution Plan dealing with the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent Nos 2-6.

  HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor/ Respondent No. 1, Sona Alloys Pvt. Ltd., admitted on 16.06.2020 vide C.P.(I.B) No. 586/2019. Thereafter, against the Ganga Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) CIRP is initiated by the Adjudicating Authority on 24.01.2019 on filing an application under section 7 of the 1B Code by Pani Logistics and thirdly against Neuromed Imaging Centre Pvt. Ltd., CIRP is initiated on 12.07.2019 by this Adjudicating Authority on filing an application by Mahaveer transport under section 7 of the 1B Code.

  Evidently, as also matter of record that there are 3 separate orders of admission against the 3 different Companies (Corporate Debtors) having separate entities. Further, the CIRP is initiated on the basis of separate cause of actions, defaults and the amount due to the different creditors. As such, when these three companies are separate entities, the consolidation is not at all possible - It is a matter of record that the Ganga Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and Neuromed Imaging Centre Pvt. Ltd. are under liquidation. It is also a matter of record that Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are not group companies, hence, the question of any consolidation of the properties does not arise at all.

  It is pertinent to note that Substantial consolidation as a remedy should always be treated as an exception rather than the rule. Moreover, this remedy can be an option for group companies however, in the instant matter the companies are not group companies but only hold substantive shares in the Corporate Debtor.

  The instant application is not maintainable - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1323 - 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 - Service of demand notice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it is found that the Demand Notice was issued by the applicant on 15.03.2019, under Section 8 of the I&B Code, through registered post on 19.03.2019. However, the same was returned with a postal remark "addressee moved". The applicant has also issued Demand Notice through email on the same date demanding the arrears of the Annual Listing Fee. However, no dispute is raised by the corporate debtor.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner received the last payment on 28.06.2013 amounting to ₹ 67,416/- for the Financial Year 2013-2014. However, the petitioner in Form-5 has stated that debt fell due on 01.04.2015. Further, on perusal of page no. 12, at para-2.10 of the petition, it is found that the respondent has made payment of annual listing fee to the applicant till Financial Year 2013-2014 only. The last payment being received on 28.06.2013 for an amount of ₹ 67,416/-. Thereafter, the corporate debtor did not pay any amount in respect of Annual Listing Fee to the petitioner. Since the debt fell due on 01.04.2015 as admitted by the petitioner, that itself is barred by Law of Limitation - Further, the date of default in Form-5, Part-IV in clause No.2 is not reflected which makes Form-5 incomplete. However, while calculating from the due date as per Form5 which is shown 01.04.2015, is beyond three years.

  On perusal of the application, it is found that the applicant has annexed one affidavit along with a Form-5 in support of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Admittedly, in para-2.2 (page no. 8), it is stated that the respondent company was earlier known as "Adeshwar Cotton Industries Ltd." and the same came to be replaced by "ACIL Cotton Industries Ltd." on 06.10.2019. In support of the said contention, the applicant annexed master data received from the MCA website. However, even after the change of name of the corporate debtor, the applicant has not entered into a fresh agreement with ACIL Cotton Industries Ltd. (corporate debtor) - the agreement so filed cannot be relied upon, as the same is not a valid agreement in the eye of law.

  The application so filed, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is bad in the eye of law and is not maintainable, hence, it does not deserve for admission - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1321 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD
  

  Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33(1) & 34(1) of the IB Code - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the records, it is found that Suspended Management has already appeared in the matter. Though they were allowed time to file reply on 12.11.2020, within two weeks, but has failed to file reply. However, the Suspended Management, being promoter, was always present in the COC meetings and never raised any objection.

  It is a matter of record that there is only one member in the Committee of Creditors i.e. Punjab National Bank, who has passed the resolution for liquidation with 100% voting, as NPV of ₹ 461.15 lakhs, proposed by the Resolution Applicant, was less than the liquidation value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor - it is also pertinent to mention herein that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement of committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT] where it was observed that the commercial wisdom has been exercised by the CoC after taking into count all the factors leading to maximisation of asset value of the Corporate Debtor, but the ultimate discretion of what to pay and how to pay each class or sub-class of creditors lies with the COC.

  The company is ordered to be liquidated - moratorium declared shall be cease to have effect - application allowed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1316 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - validity of demand notice - HELD THAT:- The demand notice dated 21.08.2019 is issued by one Mr. Naveen Jain claiming to be Director of the applicant company. Demand notice, a pre-requisite under section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing the petition under section 9, is signed and issued by Mr. Naveen Jain without any authority. On perusal of the record it is found that no document is filed by the applicant authorising Mr. Naveen Jain to sign and issue such demand notice. On perusal of the records it is also found that one Mr. Jatinder Kumar, claiming to be Director of the petitioner company, has signed the application (form 5), but no document is filed whereby Mr. Jatinder Kumar has been given authority to file such application. Thus, due to want of proper authorisation, supported with Board Resolution, demand notice and subsequent filing of the instant application is bad in the eye of law and is not maintainable.

  The agreement dated 10.11.2017 entered between the petitioner and respondent stipulates that (Clause No. 32), which read as; “whether the termination of this Agreement by either party has been legitimate, the parties shall attempt to settle such dispute amicably between them in the event that such dispute has not been amicably settled within 90 days, then such a question or dispute shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration with the Arbitration Rule of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the precise location of the arbitration shall be Gurugram - the “Code” cannot be used as an arm twisting weapon. Further, the applicant has admitted that it had paid a sum of ₹ 1.00 crore towards security which is refundable.

  The petition is not maintainable and bad in the eyes of law - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1306 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of demand notice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it is found that the Demand Notice was issued by the applicant on 15.03.2019, under Section 8 of the I&B Code, through registered post on 19.03.2019. However, the same was returned with a postal remark “Not Delivered Addressee Left without instructions”. The applicant has also issued Demand Notice through email on the same date demanding the arrears of the Annual Listing Fee. However, no dispute is raised by the corporate debtor - Admittedly, the petitioner received the last payment on 31.05.2013 amounting to ₹ 44,944/- for the Financial Year 2013-2014. However, the petitioner in Form-S has stated that debt fell due on 01.04.2015. Further, on perusal of page no. 12, at para-2.10 of the petition, it is found that the respondent has made payment of annual listing fee to the applicant till Financial Year 2013-2014 only. The last payment being received on 31.05.2013 for an amount of ₹ 44,944/-. Thereafter, the corporate debtor did not pay any amount in respect of Annual Listing Fee to the petitioner. Since the debt fell due on 01.04.2015 as admitted by the petitioner, that itself is barred by Law of Limitation.

  In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Educational Services [2018 (10) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT], the limitation period is three years, which is to be counted from the date of default. As such, the instant application is hit by the law of limitation.

  On perusal of the application, it is found that the applicant has annexed one affidavit along with a Form-5 in support of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Admittedly, in para-2.2 (page no. 8), it is stated that the respondent company was earlier known as “Kosha Cubidor Containers Ltd.” and the same came to be replaced by “KCCL Plastic Ltd.” on 29.02.2012. In support of the said contention, the applicant annexed master data received from the MCA website. However, even after the change of name of the corporate debtor, the applicant has not entered into a fresh agreement with KCCL Plastic Ltd. (corporate debtor).

  The application so filed, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is bad in the eye of law and is not maintainable, hence, it does not deserve for admission - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1294 - SC ORDER
  

  Seeking early disposal of appeal - HELD THAT:- Since the NCLT is seized of the proceedings and is to shortly take up the applications for interim relief, we are not entertaining the present civil appeal. It has been agreed by the contesting parties who are represented by Mr Shyam Divan, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr Darius Khambatta and Mr Navroj H Seervai, learned senior counsel that the parties shall proceed with the applications for interim relief before the NCLT so as to bring early closure to this aspect of the case. The NCLT is requested to endeavour an expeditious disposal of the interim applications, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1293 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI BENCH-COURT NO. 5
  

  Seeking order from this Tribunal to direct the respondent No. 2 to consider it as a ‘Financial Creditor’ - CIRP proceedings going on - related party or not - Applicants’ main grievance is that they have not been made part of the CoC as they have been considered as “related party” nor their amount invested with the Corporate Debtor is being considered as Financial Debt and, therefore, they have been denied proportionate voting in the Corporate Debtor Company - demand for a Forensic Audit of the Corporate Debtor Company.

  HELD THAT:- The Bench has no hesitation in accepting the fact that together the Applicants hold about 48% shareholding of the Corporate Debtor and Applicants No. 2 and 3 are shareholders with shareholding of more than 3% each and also were Directors of the Company and now suspended Directors of the Company. They were not only the Directors but also in control of the affairs of the Company. This Bench therefore concludes that the Applicants are “Related Party” in terms of Section 5(24)(a) and also in terms of Section 5(24)(m)(i) - The Applicants were not only the directors of the Company and covered squarely under Section 5(24)(a) of the Code but they were also managing the day-to-day affairs of the Company as per their own submissions and therefore, they are perfectly covered under Section 5(24)(m)(i) of the Code. The Bench has no doubt in its mind that the Applicants were aware of this fact and it is for this reason that the Applicant No. 2, as brought out by the Resolution Professional, has attended the CoC meeting held on 24.06.2020 (1st CoC meeting) as well as the 2nd CoC meeting held on 12.09.2020, as “Suspended Director” of the Company.

  The claim amount which the Applicants want to be treated as “Financial Debt” - HELD THAT:- The Bench is of the considered view that the payments given, as per MoU dated 10.12.2018, is only for acquisition of shares and not as financial debt - This Bench is aware of the fact that the sum of ₹ 50 Lakhs was paid by the Applicant on behalf of the Corporate Debtor to SIDBI. It has been paid to SIDBI towards settlement of dues of M/s E & G Global Estates Limited. The relevant Para of this letter of October 2019 mentions that “we will pay token amount of ₹ 50 Lakhs towards as token amount for settlement of case of ₹ 4 crores filed by SIDBI against M/s. E & G Global Estates Ltd.”. The Bench notes, subsequently ₹ 50 Lakhs was paid directly by the Applicants to SIDBI on behalf of the Corporate Debtor.

  This Bench, therefore, have no doubt in its mind that any money given to the Corporate Debtor by the Applicants was only and only for the purpose of acquisition of the Company by way of incremental purchase of shares and not a “financial debt”. This Bench is also clear, as has been demonstrated in the other paragraphs, that the set of the Applicants are “related party”, therefore, have no business to be the part of the CoC. The Resolution Professional has rightly taken them as suspended directors of the Company.

  Prayer to conduct the forensic audit of the Corporate Debtor Company - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Professional mentions that a forensic audit has already being conducted by M/s. Mazars Business Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and that the Auditors would be submitting their reports in next two months‟ time.

  Other prayers of the Applicants, regarding the existing CoC, be quashed as it is of no consequence and cannot be considered.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1289 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of application before Bench-I of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) - HELD THAT:- The present petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to mention his application before Bench-I of the NCLAT for listing.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1283 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
  

  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:- It is the 'date of default' which is the basis on which the applicability of the notification is to be applied and not the date of filing a Petition in this Tribunal. As the date of default is 03.06.2017 and onwards, the petition survives for consideration, on merits.

  It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount but it can be invoked to initiate CIRP for justified reasons as per the Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT], has inter alia held that I&B Code, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. It is also laid down that whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked.

  In the instant case, it is found that from 2017 itself a dispute has been going on with regard to the quality of goods supplied by the Petitioner and the payments due from the Respondent, i.e. much prior to the issue of the Demand Notice under the Code and filing of the instant Petition. It is seen from the email dated 15.07.2017 and 01.08.2017, i.e. prior to the filing of this Petition, which were sent by the Respondent to the Applicant, that the Respondent had already raised disputes regarding the shoddy work done by the Applicant and the quality of the goods supplied - From the evidence brought on record, it is convincing that the disputes cited were genuine, were taken into other forums such as MSMEC, and documented, and not merely a made up dispute or ruse to stall initiation of CIRP.

  In the instant case, it is admittedly a real dispute that has been taken to the MSMEC for resolution. Hence as far as the IBC is concerned, existence of such a dispute takes the Petition out of the ambit and scope of this Tribunal - it cannot be said that the Respondent has lost its substratum and is unable to run its business or pay its debts. Such a company cannot be unjustifiably pushed into an insolvency resolution process as that would be against the objects of the Code.

  In view of the pre-existing dispute between the two sides, the readiness of the Corporate Debtor to settle the debt, as also for the reason that the Corporate Debtor is a solvent company; we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for ordering CIRP against the Respondent Corporate Debtor - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1282 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  Maintenance of status quo - composition of the Board of Directors of the Respondent Company prior to the alleged Board Meeting - HELD THAT:- This appeal is disposed off by requesting the Tribunal to accord priority to the matter and make endeavours for expeditious disposal of the Company Petition alongwith all connected Interlocutory Applications, preferably within two months.

  ---

• 2020 (12) TMI 1271 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  Revision of the approved Resolution Plan - Adjudicating Authority observed that the contention of the Appellant that it had no knowledge of the financial condition of the Corporate Debtor cannot be entertained - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the Judgments rendered by this Appellate Tribunal holding that the Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be permitted to withdraw the approved Resolution Plan coupled with the fact that the Appellant in the instant case being the sole Resolution Applicant in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor which has been classified as an MSME and admittedly having knowledge of the financial health of the Corporate Debtor as a promoter or a connected person cannot be permitted to seek revision of the approved Resolution Plan on that ground which would not be a material irregularity within the ambit of Section 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

  Taking into consideration the fact that the Corporate Debtor is an MSME and there is economic slowdown globally in the wake of outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic, it is deemed appropriate to waive off the costs imposed by the Adjudicating Authority - Appeal dismissed.

  ---

12345........ 76