Judgements While admitting an application filed under Section 9 of the Code, held that the deduction of TDS by the corporate debtor on all the invoices raised by the operational creditor on the corporate debtor including unpaid invoices, proved that the debt was due and payable by the corporate debtor to the operational creditor. October 15, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements NCLT, Mumbai held that the admission by the corporate debtor of its liabilities in the minutes of the meetings, constitutes an acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. October 15, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements Held that once a settlement has been approved by 99.9% of the CoC, it is not appropriate for the adjudicating authority to reject the application for withdrawal on the ground that the timeline provided under the Code for various stages, had not been followed by the CoC. October 15, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements HELD held that Section 2 of the Code, which prescribes entities to whom the Code applies, is to be read along with Section 3(7) of the Code. The NCLAT, New Delhi rejected the appeal while holding that a society under the AP Act not being an incorporated entity, in view of Section 2 of the Code, does not fall within the definition of a ‘corporate person’ under Section 3(7) of the Code. October 15, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements HELD rejected the appellant’s plea that in view of Section 33 of the Code, the only consequence of non-completion of the resolution process within such limited time frame is liquidation. The NCLAT, New Delhi upheld the adjudicating authority’s exercise of discretion to not pass an order of liquidation in view of the resolution plan being under consideration by the CoC. October 15, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements HELD by NCLAT following its previous decision in Mr. Ravi Ajit Kulkarni vs. State Bank of India, held that at the stage of the appointment of the RP under Section 99 in order to make recommendations for acceptance or rejection of an application under Section 95(1) of the Code, the adjudicating authority cannot record its finding on whether there has been a default by the debtor. The NCLAT, accordingly, partly allowed the appeal to set aside the finding of the adjudicating authority with respect to the existence of default in the repayment of loan by the debtor. October 15, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements Held that the requirement of a financial contract under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (Adjudicating Authority Rules) is essential for satisfying the adjudicating authority on when the debt and interest become due and payable. The NCLAT, New Delhi held that in the absence of a written agreement, the applicant, which was a non-banking financial company (NBFC), had failed to establish that the transaction in question was a loan transaction. October 13, 2021October 15, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements NCLAT, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Others [Civil Appeal No. 9402-9405 etc. of 2018], held that the resolution applicant does not have any vested or fundamental right to have its resolution plan approved. In this case, the NCLAT, New Delhi refused to interfere with the decision of the CoC, which in its commercial wisdom, had decided not to grant further time to the resolution applicant to present its resolution plan before the CoC. October 13, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements NCLAT, held that Section 20(2)(b) of the Code authorizes the RP to only re-enter into such contracts, concerning the corporate debtor, which were entered into before the commencement of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). In this case, the NCLAT, New Delhi held that the RP/interim resolution professional (IRP) did not have the power to enter into a new contract for insurance, which was at a higher premium rate without the authorization of the CoC. October 13, 2021October 13, 2021 Ibcode
Judgements National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Another, held that the one-time settlement offers (OTS) by the corporate debtor would be considered as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and hence, would extend the period of limitation from the date of such OTS proposal. The NCLAT, New Delhi further held that the fact that the payments are made in order to induce the bank to consider the OTS proposal, will not make a difference as to the applicability of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. October 13, 2021 Ibcode
