The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) issued crucial orders under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The orders are classified into three categories: pre-admission stage, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) stage, and miscellaneous.
Pre-admission stage:
- Lata Gole v. LCL Logistix (India) Private Limited & Ors. (CA No. 1421/2023): The NCLAT clarified that in a Section 9 application, the Adjudicating Authority need not concern itself with determining whether cheques issued were security cheques.
- Hytera Communications Corporation Limited v. Simoco Telecommunications (South Asia) Limited (CA No. 1116/2022): The NCLAT emphasized that failure to obtain permission for overseas remittance is not a valid defense for a corporate debtor’s default.
- Rahul Maroo v. Bruck Pharma Private Limited (CA No. 1156/2022): The NCLAT ruled that share application money received without following procedural requirements would not qualify as financial debt.
- Loramitra Rath v. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (CA No. 1359 & 1360/2023): The NCLAT highlighted that filing an interim application after the reservation of judgment is not permissible.
- Rajesh Kumar Pandey v. KK Steels (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 96 of 2023): The NCLAT held that appropriation of tax benefits does not create operational debt, and disputes on goods quality do not get waived based on subsequent orders.
CIRP Stage:
- ICICI Bank Limited v. BKM Industries Limited (CA No. 405/2023): The NCLAT rejected the dissenting financial creditor’s challenge to the distribution mechanism, emphasizing distribution as per admitted debt under Section 53.
- Chaitanya Sevabhavi Sanstha v. Manoj Kumar Agarwal (CA No. 1323/2023): The NCLAT clarified that group insolvency cannot be undertaken for partnership firms.
- Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP v Mr. Shailen Shah (CA No. 241/2023): The NCLAT ruled that inventory in the possession of the corporate debtor can be used by the resolution professional.
- Rajendra Surana v. Jayesh Sangharika (CA No. 795/2023): A clause in the resolution plan barring the real estate authority from entertaining claims did not violate the law.
- Sabari Realty Private Limited v. Sivana Realty Private Limited (CA No. 1162/2023): The NCLAT held that a resolution professional’s decision on entity classification based on a declaration in a claim form cannot be questioned.
- Fervent Synergies Limited v. Manish Jaju & Ors. (CA No. 1338/2023): The NCLAT clarified that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied against the resolution applicant.
- Sita Chaudhary v. Haryana Telecom Limited (CA No. 727 728/2023): The NCLAT emphasized the limited scope of interference with an order approving the resolution plan.
Miscellaneous:
- State Bank of India v. Dharamraj Aluminium Industries Private Limited (CA No. 93/2023): The NCLAT ruled that the benefit of exclusion in computing the limitation period cannot be provided if a parallel proceeding (winding up) was filed by a third party.
- Kunwer Sachdev v. Su-Kam Power Systems Limited (CA No. 1177/2023): A successful auction purchaser can pursue the avoidance application if the acquisition plan provides for it.
- City Union Bank Limited v. Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther (Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 327/2023): Non-service of notice at the registered office cannot be a ground to challenge a Section 9 application if the notice served at the branch office has been responded to by the corporate debtor.
- Rita Singh v. Atul Kumar Kansal (CA No. 736/2023): The NCLAT refused to entertain a challenge to the transaction of an assignment of debt by a foreign financial creditor on the ground that it did not comply with the RBI’s Master Direction.
This concise overview highlights key decisions by the NCLAT during the specified period, providing valuable insights into the evolving landscape of insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings.
