IBC Weekly Round Up[27th January-2nd February 2025]

Mohd Malik Chauhan

3 Feb 2025 3:05 PM IST

  • IBC Weekly Round Up[27th January-2nd February 2025]

    Nominal Index: INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126 Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., WP.No,712/2024 and WMP.Nos.730 & 732/2024 Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs Daphne Reita Rajan Sharma & Anr., RERA APPEAL 7/2024 HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim...

    Nominal Index:

    INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126

    Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., WP.No,712/2024 and WMP.Nos.730 & 732/2024

    Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs Daphne Reita Rajan Sharma & Anr., RERA APPEAL 7/2024

    HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of Birla Tyres Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2023

    In re: Proceedings against Goldman Sachs (India) Alternative Investment Management Private Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002, M&A/10/2020/01/CD

    Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Versus State Bank of India and Anr., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1609 of 2024

    Amrit Rajani Versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Anr., Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 375 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1261, 1262 of 2023

    K. Lakshmi Narayana v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2105 of 2024

    Ramesh Jadhav Vs. Vakati Balasubramaniam Reddy & Anr.',Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 173 of 2025

    State Bank of India Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 321 of 2024

    PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VS. M/S MBL (MP) TOLL ROAD COMPANY LIMITED, CP (IB) No.423/(PB)/2023

    Supreme Court

    IBC | For Resolution Plan Involving Combination, Prior Approval Of Competition Commission Mandatory Before CoC Examination : Supreme Court

    Case name: INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023

    Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126

    The Supreme Court on January 29, by 2:1 majority, observed that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, containing a proposed combination(a merger or amalgamation of entities), should only be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after it has been approved by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

    High Court

    Proviso To S.10A Of IBC Doesn't Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors.

    Case Number: WP.No,712/2024 and WMP.Nos.730 & 732/2024

    The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period.

    The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for any default arising on or after 25.03.2020 for a period of six months.

    Moratorium U/S 14 Of IBC Doesn't Exempt Promoter From Complying With Mandatory Pre-Deposit Required U/S 43(5) Of RERA: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs Daphne Reita Rajan Sharma & Anr.

    Case Number: RERA APPEAL 7/2024

    The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not exempt a promoter from complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

    NCLAT

    Commercial Wisdom Of CoC To Distribute Amount Based On Security Interest Under Resolution Plan Cannot Be Interfered With: NCLAT

    Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of Birla Tyres Ltd. & Ors.

    Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2023

    The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that commercial wisdom of the CoC to distribute the amount under the Resolution Plan based on security interest of the respective financial creditors cannot be interfered with provided provisions of the code are complied with.

    CCI Imposes ₹40 Lakh Penalty On Goldman Sachs For Failure To Notify Investment In Biocon Biologics U/S 6(2) Of Competition Act

    Case Title: In re: Proceedings against Goldman Sachs (India) Alternative Investment Management Private Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002

    Ref. No.: M&A/10/2020/01/CD

    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has penalized Goldman Sachs INR 40 lakh under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002, for failing to notify its investment in Biocon Biologics Limited.

    Creditors Are Not Barred From Enforcing Personal Guarantee Signed On Their Behalf By Trust: NCLAT

    Case Title: Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Versus State Bank of India and Anr.

    Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1609 of 2024

    The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that creditors are not barred from enforcing a personal guarantee even if they were not party to the trusteeship deed signed on their behalf between a trust and the personal guarantors.

    Decision To Liquidate Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Faulted When Revival Is Not A Viable Option: NCLAT

    Case Title: Amrit Rajani Versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Anr.

    Case Number: Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 375 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1261, 1262 of 2023

    The 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 when it becomes clear that revival is not a viable option, a decision taken by the CoC to liquidate the corporate debtor cannot be faulted.

    NCLAT Upholds Rejection Of Application U/S 9 Of IBC Against Hindustan Unilever Limited

    Case Title: K. Lakshmi Narayana v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

    Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2105 of 2024

    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has dismissed the appeal against the order rejecting the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed against Hindustan Unilever Limited on the ground that the claims were below the threshold limit, time-barred and there was a pre-existing dispute.

    Withdrawal Of Liquidation Application Can Be Permitted When CoC Allows RP To File Application Seeking Extension Of CIRP Time Period: NCLAT

    Case Title: 'Ramesh Jadhav Vs. Vakati Balasubramaniam Reddy & Anr.'

    Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 173 of 2025

    The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when the CoC has already taken decision to file an application for extension of CIRP time period and granting permission to publish Form G for third time, withdrawal of liquidation application by Adjudicating Authority can be permitted.

    Liquidation Proceeds Must Be Distributed Amongst Secured Creditors Based On Admitted Claims U/S 53 Of IBC: NCLAT

    Case Title: State Bank of India Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr.

    Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 321 of 2024

    The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) has held that liquidation proceeds must be distributed as per section 53 of the IBC based on admitted claims of the respective secured creditors and cannot be distributed on the basis of security interest of different Secured Creditors.

    Assets Of Subsidiary Can't Be Treated As Assets Of Holding Company In CIRP: NCLAT Sets Aside Order Directing Fresh Valuation Of Assets

    Case Title: State Bank of India, Singapore Branch vs. Shantanu Prakash & Ors.

    Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1351 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4802, 4803, 4804, 4805, 6007 of 2023

    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has observed that the assets of a subsidiary company cannot be treated as part of the assets of its holding company in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority does not have the jurisdiction to direct fresh valuation of such assets when they are owned by the subsidiary and not the Corporate Debtor.

    NCLT

    Pre-Existing Dispute Between Financial Creditor And Corporate Debtor Doesn't Bar Petition U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLT

    Case Title: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VS. M/S MBL (MP) TOLL ROAD COMPANY LIMITED

    Case Number: CP (IB) No.423/(PB)/2023

    The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi bench comprising Chief Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Avinash K. Srivatava (Technical Member) has held that a pre-existing dispute between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor does not bar a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to be entertained.

    Next Story