Upholding the Validity of Provisions Related to Personal Guarantors Under IBC – Good for Lenders, Bad for Guarantors
by Zorawar Singh† and Hitesh Mankar††
CIRP
10 Important Insolvency Law Judgments of 2023
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 1
Explained| Supreme Court verdict upholding constitutional validity of provisions relating to Personal Guarantors in IBC
“The principle aims of IBC are to promote investment, and resolution of insolvencies of corporate persons, firms, and individuals in a time bound manner. The IBC consolidated and amended a web of laws which had led to an ineffective and inefficient mechanism for resolution of insolvencies marked with significant delay”
Financial Debt claim under Section 5(8) of IBC cannot be entertained after CoC’s approval of Resolution Plan: NCLAT
The NCLAT reiterated the importance of adhering to timelines in the Insolvency resolution process and the unacceptability of claims filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.
NCLAT affirms dismissal of minority homebuyers’ challenge to Resolution Plan; says it does not fall foul of law on reduction in claim
The democratic principles of the determinative role of majority opinion are enshrined in the IBC, and objections by a minority within a class, when the majority has approved a resolution plan, have no legal standing.
NCLT orders initiation of Insolvency Process due to default in payment and bounced Post-Dated Cheques
NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor failed to prove a pre-existing dispute to justify the rejection of the Section 9 application.
Default occurred when post-dated cheques bounced; NCLT directs to initiate insolvency process
NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor failed to prove a pre-existing dispute to justify the rejection of the Section 9 application.
Adjudicating Authority’s order for liquidation valid when Resolution Plan remains unapproved, and no alternative plan in CIRP exists: NCLAT
The Liquidator should endeavor to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern in the Liquidation Proceeding, and the appellant may participate by submitting its plan.
Closure of CIRP proceedings renders jurisdictional question regarding pre-CIRP dues irrelevant; NCLAT dismisses appeal
NCLAT observed that the issue raised by the appellant, while attractive, no longer had relevance after the closure of the CIRP proceedings.
Arbitrator’s fees to be treated as preferential payments even where CIRP proceedings are pending before NCLT: Madras High Court
Madras High Court said that if the Arbitrators are not paid their fees / costs on account of the moratorium order, the object of arbitration will get defeated, as competent Arbitrators will hesitate to become Arbitrators in a dispute involving Companies facing financial crisis.
Operational Creditor cannot claim payment equal to Financial Creditor in Insolvency proceeding under IBC: NCLAT
The principle of equality is applicable only in same class of creditors, i.e., secured or unsecured, financial or operational.
In project wise insolvency, IRP/RP cannot seek unpaid Fees/Costs from members of CoCs of another project of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT
The NCLAT held that the appellant has no Locus Standi to make claim for any unpaid Fees/Costs from the members of the CoCs, as he is neither the RP in the project nor is connected with another project.
Corporate Debtor cannot constitute Committee of Creditors with a single Operational Creditor under IBC: NCLAT
NCLAT held that CIRP be closed with respect to the Corporate Debtor since not a single ‘Claim' was received by the IRP even after the public announcement.
‘Arbitration Proceedings’ and ‘IBC Proceedings’ cannot go on together; NCLAT upholds NCLT’s order rejecting Section 9 application
NCLAT held that an application preferred under Section 9 of the IBC for implementation of an Arbitral Award is not maintainable.
While admitting application under Section 7 of the IBC, existence of Debt and Default needs to be examined not ‘Quantum of Debt’: NCLAT
“In the instant case, the record establishes that there is a ‘debt’ and a ‘default’ and the Application is complete and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the Application under Section 7 of the Code.”
Operational creditor cannot seek to initiate CIRP against Corporate Debtor when real dispute exists: NCLAT
The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority’s order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
Insolvency proceeding can be restored when Consent term entered between parties includes a revival clause: NCLAT
“When consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential”, held NCLAT
Can Corporate Debtor raise issue of pre-existing dispute if there is no evidence of any lacuna prior to demand notice? NCLAT answers
“The Adjudicating Authority does not appear to have committed any error in holding the alleged disputes claimed by the Corporate Debtor to be feeble as it is not supported by credible evidence.” NCLAT
NCLT admits Go Air insolvency plea
A creditor has limited grounds to object to S. 10 of IBC application.