Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked When Party Has Already Approached DRT Under SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition while upholding that if a borrower has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act, for a one-time settlement, a writ seeking the same relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

NCLAT

[Reverse CIRP] NCLAT Closes CIRP Against Grand Reality Under Its Inherent Powers Upon Handover Of Flats To Homebuyers & Satisfaction Of Claims

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) exercising its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, has closed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. through the 'Reverse CIRP' mechanism. The project was completed under court-monitored supervision, and possession was handed over to all homebuyers, and no outstanding claims were due.

Procedural Direction To File An Affidavit On Ledger Accuracy Is Not Appealable U/S 61 Of IBC: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member – Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member – Technical), has held that the procedural direction requiring the appellant to file an affidavit confirming the accuracy of certain ledger transactions could not be appealed. The appeal was preferred u/s 61 of the IBC.

Ratification Of IRP Fees By CoC Can Be Implied From Meeting Minutes And Conduct: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member – Technical), has ruled that the application u/s 9 of the IBC, 2016, cannot be sustained if the operational debt is settled before the date of admission.

Financial Creditor Can't File Same Claim Twice For Same Loan In Multiple Insolvency Proceedings Without Proper Adjustment: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that a financial creditor is not permitted to file the same claim twice for the same loan in multiple insolvency proceedings without proper adjustment. In the present case, the Appellant filed the same claim in two separate proceedings without disclosing the claims filed in an earlier proceeding.

Intervention Application U/S 60(5) Of IBC Can't Be Entertained Beyond Limitation Period Of Three Years: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the Corporate Debtor cannot avoid its obligation to repay the debt on the ground that section 186 of the Companies Act was not followed while disbursing the loan. The aim of this provision is to protect the shareholders, not to shield the corporate debtor from its repayment obligations.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that once transactions are declared fraudulent under section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Adjudicating Authority can pass an appropriate order directing the restoration of the demonstrated loss to the assets of the corporate debtor.

Conduct Of Litigant Can't Be Considered Bonafide When Fresh Order Is Challenged In Re-Filed Appeal After Curing Defects: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the conduct of the litigant cannot be considered bona fide when an appeal, re-filed after rectification of defects, challenges a new order different from the one challenged in the original appeal. Therefore, the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the earlier proceedings.

Liability Of Corporate Debtor Not Discharged By Release Of Guarantors' Liability If Bank Preserves Right To Proceed Under IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the liability of the Corporate Debtor is not discharged merely because the guarantors were released from their liabilities by the Bank after One time settlement (OTS) especially when the Bank had preserved its right to proceed against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Govt Cannot Maintain Attachment Of Property To Press For Recovery Outside Liquidation Framework: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member – Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member – Technical), has addressed the conflict between a secured creditor's statutory attachment under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Act, 1864, and the liquidation process under the IBC, 2016.

Bankrupt Can File Application For Discharge After One Year, If Bankruptcy Trustee Fails To Do So: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi held that when the Bankruptcy Trustee does not fulfil its statutory obligation under Section 138(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which requires the Trustee to apply for a discharge order after expiry of one year from the bankruptcy commencement date, the Bankrupt who is directly affected by continuance of the bankruptcy proceedings, can't be denied the right to approach the Adjudicating Authority and seek discharge.

Application U/S 7 Of IBC Withdrawn After Settlement Agreement Can Be Revived If Settlement Terms Are Breached By Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the right of the financial creditor to seek revival of the original application filed under Section 7 of the Code cannot be taken away merely because a settlement agreement was reached, if the corporate debtor failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Belated Claims Of Homebuyers Can't Be Rejected If Their Units Are Reflected In Corporate Debtor's Records: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that claims filed by homebuyers cannot be rejected merely for being filed beyond the stipulated time period, if the homebuyer's unit is reflected in the list of homebuyers who had not filed their claims on time.

NCLT

Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Not Maintainable For Non-Return Of Expired, Uninvoked Bank Guarantee Under Settlement Agreement: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Shri Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) and Shri Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member) has held that failure to return one of the bank guarantees, as per the settlement terms agreed upon between the parties, cannot form the basis for filing a petition under Section 7 of the IBC when such guarantee was neither renewed nor invoked before its expiry. In the present, the Respondent had paid the full payment as per the Settlement Agreement but failed to return one of the Bank Guarantees which expired without being invoked or renewed.

Pledged Shares Held By Corporate Debtor In Subsidiary Are Its Assets, Can't Be Invoked During CIRP Due To Moratorium: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Technical Member) has held that pledged shares held by the Corporate Debtor in its subsidiary company are assets of the Corporate Debtor and, therefore, cannot be invoked by the pledgee during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to the bar under Section 14 of the IBC.

Amounts Reflected In Corporate Debtor's Records Can't Be Rejected Even If No Formal Claims Are Filed Before Resolution Professional: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Justice Shri V.G. Bisht and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Member Technical) has held that amounts reflected in the books of the Corporate Debtor cannot be rejected even if no formal claims are filed by the Creditors.

Adjudicating Authority Must Pass Liquidation Order U/S 33(4) Of IBC Upon Breach Of Resolution Plan By Successful Applicant: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Lakshmi Gurung (Member Judicial) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Member Technical) has held that once the Successful Resolution Applicant fails to comply with the terms of the Resolution Plan despite several reminders being given, the Adjudicating Authority is mandated to pass an order of liquidation under section 33(4) of the IBC.

Set-Off Of Fixed Deposit Against Overdraft Based On Pre-CIRP Contract Does Not Violate Section 14 Of IBC: NCLT Bengaluru

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, has held that the set-off of a fixed deposit against an overdraft, based on an untainted contract entered into before the commencement of the CIRP, does not breach Section 14 of the IBC, nor do such deposits form part of the Corporate Debtor's asset pool.

Related Party Status Must Be Determined On When Insolvency Proceedings Commence, Not By Historical Facts: NCLT Ahmedabad

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench of Mr. Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (Technical Member), held that related party status as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code must be determined on the date of commencement of Insolvency Proceedings and not based on historical roles.