Home
/

IBC News
/
IBC Weekly Round-Up [3rd March To...

IBC Weekly Round-Up [3rd March To 9th March, 2025]

Mohd Malik Chauhan

10 March 2025 9:00 PM IST

Supreme Court Wonders Why NCLAT Wrote Long Order On Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency

Case Title – Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285

The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), despite having a high pendency of cases, devoted extensive time and effort to writing a 17-page order on a delay condonation application.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that lengthy submissions and pleadings by members of the Bar often contribute to unnecessarily verbose orders.

IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar Execution Of Penalties Imposed Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284

In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (March 4) ruled that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”).

The Court explained that Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes certain liabilities, such as fines and penalties, from the moratorium's effect. As a result, penalties imposed by Consumer Redressal Forums under the regulatory statutes like the CP Act do not fall within the scope of the moratorium.

High Court

[Noida Sports City Scam] Allahabad HC Lays Down Guidelines Regarding Rights Of Other Members Of Consortium When One Member Goes Into Insolvency

Case Title: M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31823 of 2019]

While directing CBI inquiry against officials of New Okhla Development Authority and various allottes/ builder involved in development of the Sporty City project in Noida, the Allahabad High Court laid down guidelines regarding the rights of other members of consortium, when one member goes into insolvency as the same is not provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Holding that the IBC is not indented to hamper projects of national importance, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar laid down the following guidelines:

NCLAT

Approved Resolution Plan Cannot Be Reopened For Belatedly Agitated Claims: NCLAT

Case Title: Shri Krishan V. H.S Oberoi Buildtech Private Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed a set of four appeals filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 stating that the appellants had failed to exercise due diligence on protecting their rights with the prescribed timelines.

Promoter Undergoing CIRP Can Be Permitted To Complete Project For Benefit Of Homebuyer: NCLAT

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 an appeal filed by the suspended directors of the Supertech Township Projects Ltd stating that the resolution plan of the corporate debtor must proceed strictly as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

No Straight Jacket Formula Can Be Laid Down For Adjudication Of Application U/S 12A Of IBC & Objections Therein: NCLAT

Case Title: Himanshu Singh, Suspended Director of Kriti Prakashan Private Limited Versus HDFC Bank Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 of 2025

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 no straight jacket formula can be laid down for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority of a 12A application and the objections filed therein.

It further observed that the Adjudicating Authority has to see whether the claim has substantially been settled substantially or not. If it is satisfied that the amount has already been settled, it may consider this as one of the factors while allowing the application under section 12A.

Timely Implementation Of Resolution Plan Is The Underlying Objective Of The IBC: NCLAT

Case: Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India

Citation: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2012-2013 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7544 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India, recently dismissed the appeal filed by Darwin Platform, upholding an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, which had reinstated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The case arose from the failure of the appellant to implement the resolution plan within the stipulated timeline, leading to the invocation of its Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG).

Operational Creditors Cannot Question Approval Of Resolution Plan That Provides Them With More Than Liquidation Value: NCLAT

Case Title: J.K. PAPER FIBRE RESOURCES Through its Partner Mr. Jitendra K. Shah Versus Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 76 of 2025

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) that Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be questioned by the Operational Creditors when they were provided more than the liquidation value under the Plan as per section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

NCLT

NCLT Doesn't Have Jurisdiction To Direct ED To Defreeze Corporate Debtor's Account Frozen Under PMLA: NCLT

Case Title: Mr. Shailendra Singh, Resolution Professional of Foxdom Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr.

Case Number: ΙΑ NO. 4689 OF 2023 IN IB-102(ND)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that the NCLT, which is the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/ the Code) does not have the power to issue directions to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to defreeze the account of the Corporate Debtor when the account was frozen as per the directions of the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction to deal with matters related to attachment and freezing of accounts under PMLA vests exclusively with the authorities designated under the PMLA.

Payments From Corporate Debtor's Account Post-CIRP Commencement Without IRP Approval Is Breach Of Moratorium: NCLT Mumbai Directs Refund

Case Title: Mr. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi vs. Mr. Sunil Gutte & 5 others

Case Number: I.A. 1833 OF 2019 in C.P.(IB) No. 2295/MB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench comprising Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Justice V. G. Bisht (Judicial Member) have held that any payments made from the Corporate Debtor's account after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without the Interim Resolution Professional's (IRP) approval are in contravention of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code). The Tribunal directed Respondents to refund amounts totaling Rs. 10,01,80,000 and directed the Liquidator to notify IBBI for proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Code.

NCLT Admits Insolvency Proceedings Against Ansal Properties And Infrastructure U/S 7 Of IBC, Declares Moratorium

Case Title: M/s IL&FS Financial Services Limited vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited

Case Number: CP No.: IB 558(ND)/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has admitted insolvency proceedings under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/ Code) against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited. The Tribunal declared moratorium under section 14 of the Code.

IBC Weekly Round-Up [3rd March To 9th March, 2025]

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags