The Supreme Court held that any assertion that there is any scope for negotiations of the resolution plan after its approval by the CoC is against the terms of the IBC, and any attempt to renege from the terms of the resolution plan post its approval must be disallowed. Further, Court held that upon approval of a resolution plan by the CoC under S. 30(4) of the Code, the role of the Adjudicating Authority under S. 31 (1) of the Code is limited to checking whether the resolution plan meets the requirements as provided in S. 30(2) of the Code and whether the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation. There is no scope for the re-negotiation of the resolution plan after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC.
The Court held that Section 138 NI Act proceedings for cheque dishonour will be barred against the corporate debtor during the moratorium period declared under IBC. The Court observed that Section 138 NI Act was a ‘quasi-criminal’ proceeding to enforce a civil remedy.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes, which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. However, for adjudication of disputes that arise dehors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, the RP must approach the relevant competent authority.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the prohibition placed by the Parliament in Section 29A and Section 35(1)(f) of the IBC must also attach itself to a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Act of 2013, when the company is undergoing liquidation under the auspices of the IBC. As such, Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Process Regulations, specifically the proviso to Regulation 2B(1), is also constitutionally valid.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a petition either under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed qua the same company.
The Hon’ble NCLAT held that that the mere presence of an agreement providing for arbitration in case of a dispute will not be a disabling provision for an operational creditor considering that S. 238 of the Code has an overriding effect over existing laws or existing contracts.
Hon’ble NCLAT held that that there is no bar for the Financial Creditor to proceed against the principal borrower as well as Corporate Guarantor at the same time, either in CIRPs or file claims in both CIRPs. Therefore, the claim submitted by the Financial Creditor was required to be considered by the IRP/RP in the CIRP proceedings.
Hon’ble NCLAT held that in Liquidation, all the Creditors are entitled to get their dues only in terms of Section 53 of Code & different Creditors cannot be allowed to resort to different proceedings and enactments only because they are Authorities under earlier enactments considering the provision of Section 238 of the Code.
Tags: Dhir & Dhir Associates
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
