Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The NCLAT rejected Resolution Professional’s reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as no fraud was found on the part of the Corporate Debtor.
“The respondent, having failed to lodge its claim, cannot enforce the impugned orders and notices, given the binding nature of the approved Resolution Plan.”
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.
“The IBC and the resolution process does not contemplate matters being left inchoate. In fact, it exhorts one to accept the seal of finality and quietude which stands attached to the approval of a Resolution Plan.”
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.
Calcutta High Court observed that the argument advanced by the applicants leave an impression that “a desperate attempt is made to have the order reviewed in the garb of recall”.
The principle of equality is applicable only in same class of creditors, i.e., secured or unsecured, financial or operational.
NCLAT held that the Provident Fund and Gratuity dues of the appellant are to be paid in full.
DSK Legal advised and assisted Mr. Sundaresh Bhat, appointed as Resolution Professional JBF Petrochemicals Limited (“JBF”) with respect to the corporate insolvency
DEAL DETAILS Standard Chartered Bank | Resolution Plan and Acquisition Financing Khaitan & Co advised Standard Chartered Bank for providing financial assistance
DEAL DETAILS Reliance Industries Limited | Sintex Resolution Plan Khaitan & Co acted as legal counsel for Reliance Industries Limited and Assets
NCLAT held that that the allocation of meagre amount in Resolution Plan to Creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value but same is not the case in instant matter.
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.
The Delhi High Court held that adjudication of an avoidance application was independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and could survive Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and a Resolution Professional would not be functus officio with respect to adjudication of avoidance application.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that once the CoC has decided to vote on the resolution plans after closure of challenge process, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider any revised plan submitted thereafter.
NCLAT while deciding the appeal held that the CoC after approving the resolution plan cannot seek direction from Adjudicating Authority to consider the new resolution plan of a third party who was not a part of the CIRP as it would fall outside the timeline and defeat the very scope and objective of the Code.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member)
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Dismissing the appeals, a bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Kanthi Narahari
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that there is no provision in Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for alteration or modification in the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority