S. 8 IBC | Service Of Demand Notice On Corporate Debtor's Key Managerial Personnel Is Valid To Trigger Insolvency Process : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 29) upheld the delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to the corporate debtor's Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), stating that the delivery of the notice to the KMP substantially complies with the requirement of Section 8 of IBC. Setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal...

Repeated Filing Of Applications U/S 42 Of IBC Violates Principle Of Res Judicata, Amounts To Abuse Of Law: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member (Technical) dismissed appeals filed by the EPFO against the RP and SRA, stating that the same is restricted by the Doctrine of Res Judicata. Background The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) filed a Company Appeal before...

Claims For Interest Based On RERA Order Do Not Translate Into Financial Debt Under IBC: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) comprising of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram, Member (Judicial) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Member (Technical) dismissed a Section 60(5) application filed by the Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta against Mr. Devendra Umrao, the Resolution professional (RP) of M/s Opulent Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd. Background An application was filed...

IBC Weekly Round Up [21st April-28th April 2025]

Nominal Index: Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S ESL Steel Limited) vs Ispat Carrier Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 491 Anup Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & others., WPA 4585 of 2023 Arrhum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Khattar (Liquidator), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1944 of 2024 Maneesh Ramakant Sapte Vs Export Import Bank of India & Ors,...

Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included In IBC Resolution Plan Can't Be Enforced: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal challenging the enforcement of an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.“we have no hesitation to hold that upon...

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Declare Sale Of Going Concern As Void Without Any Challenge: NCLAT New Delhi

The Principal Bench of NCLAT, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member-Technical), set aside the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench's order and held that a sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern cannot be declared null and void suo moto by the Adjudicating Authority in the absence of any challenge to such sale. The Adjudicating Authority had...

Financial Creditors Proceeding With Application U/S 7 Only As A Recovery Measure Is Not The Objective Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member Technical) dismissed and appeal filed by a suspended director of the Corporate Debtor (Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited) challenging the order of admitting Section 7 application by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT),...

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Declare A Sale Transaction Void U/S 66(1) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

The Principal Bench of the NCLAT, New Delhi, presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) along with Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has modified an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai) and partly allowed an appeal. The tribunal partly set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order, which invalidated the transfer of two flats to the appellants, but...

Section 94 Of IBC Cannot Be Used To Hinder Recovery Process Under SARFAESI Act: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member-Technical) has upheld the dismissal of a Section 94 IBC petition filed by the personal guarantor and held that IBC proceedings cannot be misused to obstruct legitimate recovery under SARFAESI Act. It...

Section 45 Of IBC Applies To Transactions Made Prior To CIRP, Not On Date Of Initiation: NCLAT Principal Bench, New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical) dismissed joint appeals filed by eight appellants against a common judgment of the adjudicating authority (NCLT, New Delhi) in various interlocutory applications (IAs)...

Application U/S 95 Of IBC Against Personal Guarantors Not Barred By Change In Debt Quantum After Approval Of Plan Against Corporate Debtor: 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 a change in the quantum of debt to be paid by the personal guarantor, following the approval of the resolution plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor, does not negate the right of...

Creditor Obtaining Award Directing Real Estate Firm To Not Create Third-Party Interest In Specified Units Doesn't Amount To 'Security Interest': NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that merely obtaining an arbitral award in which the corporate debtor was directed not to create any third‑party interest in specified units does not amount to creating a “security interest” within the meaning of...