The NCLAT set aside the CIRP initiated by Respondent No. 2 ...

Collusive CIRP initiation by related parties disguised as financial debt.

November 30, 2024

Case Laws IBC AT

The NCLAT set aside the CIRP initiated by Respondent No. 2 against Respondent No. 1, holding it to be collusive and for purposes other than insolvency resolution. Respondent No. 3 was a director and shareholder in all three companies, controlling over 20% voting shares, thereby qualifying as a related party u/s 5(24)(m)(i) and (iii) of the IBC. The amount disbursed by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1, being related parties, does not qualify as financial debt per the Supreme Court's ruling in Phoenix ARC case. The NCLAT relied on Hytone Merchants case, which allowed setting aside CIRP if collusion is proved despite fulfilling Section 7 requirements. Respondent No. 3's presence across companies and lack of denial regarding allegations indicated collusion between Respondents No. 1 and 2.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The NCLAT set aside the CIRP initiated by Respondent No. 2 ...

Collusive CIRP initiation by related parties disguised as financial debt.

November 30, 2024

Case Laws IBC AT

You may also like:

CIRP proceedings - Financial Creditors - Related party - while the default rule under the first proviso to Section 21(2) is that only those financial creditors that are...

Section 53(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) provides for the order of priority in the distribution of liquidation assets. Financial debts owed to unsecured...

Initiation of CIRP - Related Parties - Financial Creditors - the documentary evidence on record clearly establishes that the entire loan was converted into equity and...

CIRP - discrimination of Related Party Financial or Operational Creditor - IBC treats related parties as a separate category for specified purposes, excluding from the...

Initiation of CIRP proceedings - In the order of NCLT, there was no finding rendered by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ as to how a third party payment became a ‘Financial...

Financial Debt or not - related parties - Approval of Resolution Plan - The basic element of the Financial Debt that such disbursement should be for consideration of...

The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision to exclude the Appellant and other unsecured Financial Creditors from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The key issues were...

Admission of section 7 application - financial debt or not - The Tribunal affirmed that the disbursal of ₹5 crores to the corporate debtor by the financial...

Initiation of CIRP - Financial Creditors - Financial Debt - There is a difference between the levy of liquidated damages or penal interest for default and the financial...

Admissibility of application - initiation of CIRP - Having made the payment prior to initiation of CIRP, we are of the view that the case of the Respondent/Applicant...

Initiation of CIRP - Existence of a financial debt - Assignment of debt- The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s findings, agreeing that: The...

The Appellant, a related party unsecured financial creditor, challenged the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority,...

Initiation of CIRP - Decree Holder - Financial Creditor - the debt in this case arising out of a decree, is a Financial Debt. - Section 3(11) of the Code defines debt as...

Initiation of CIRP - Financial Debt or Operational Debt - existence of ‘Default’ or not - The contra views arrived at by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ that the ‘Loan’ was...

Initiation of CIRP - Financial Debt - Converion of Debt into Capital - Once the ‘Debt’ is converted into “Capital” it cannot be termed as ‘Financial Debt’ and the...

Quick Updates: