Tribunal Monthly Roundup July 2023 | Top Stories on Illegal Sand Mining on Yamuna Bank; Mumbai Floods 2005; Tata Power; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies, Commissions this month
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies, Commissions this month
“If in the present case, the petition is entertained, it will eventually subvert the procedure laid down under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the respondent in return will be denied the opportunity to present their case before the concerned NCLT.”
In the case at hand, PVVNL had argued that the rights of electricity suppliers were not subordinate and subject to the ‘priority of claims’ mechanism under the IBC.
The Supreme Court said that it cannot adopt a doctrinaire approach. Some sacrifices have to be always made for the greater good, and unless such sacrifices are prima facie apparent and ex facie harsh and unequitable as to classify as manifestly arbitrary, these would not be interfered with by the court. Thus, no priority can be given to workers’ dues after liquidation of the company under the IBC.
by Anoop Rawat†, Saurav Panda†† and Amrit Mahal†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 51
by Sharmistha Ghosh†
NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the S. 7 application for not fulfilling ‘threshold’ when Deed of Guarantee mentions about the interest on default.
The Court said that Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. would be treated as a secured creditor in terms of Section 52 and 53 of the IBC, and would be entitled to retain the security interest in the pledged shares.
A creditor has limited grounds to object to S. 10 of IBC application.
“Any settlement after passing of the impugned order and after constitution of the CoC is only permissible when the same is approved with 90% vote share of CoC.”
Madras High Court said that there is no reason why the complaint was not filed either before IBBI or NCLT for the alleged fraud.
The Court opined that the present case would fall under the Office Memorandum which stated that “where there is no cognizable offence under IPC and other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country.”
The PIL seeks formulation and implementation of a scheme that conclusively addresses the grievances of other home buyers who may not have the capacity to approach courts/forums to seek redressal against builders.
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other.
by Swarnendu Chatterjee†, Anwesha Pal†† and Megha Saha†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 22
ITAT reiterated that IBC has overriding effect on all the acts including Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’) which has been specifically provided under Section 178(6) of the IT Act as amended w.e.f. 01-11-2016.
In the instant case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence neither submitted proof of claim nor responded to a specific communication via an e-mail addressed to Senior Intelligence Officer. This is a case where despite knowledge, the statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.