Relevant Judgments

• Supreme Court

  • IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS SICGIL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal 2030 of 2019, date: 04.01.2023:The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Ld. NCLT cannot exercise parallel jurisdiction with Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for addressing violations of the Regulations framed under the SEBI Act. Therefore, The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the petition under Section 111A of the Companies Act 1956 Act for a declaration that the acquisition of shares by the Respondents as null and void is misconceived and opined that the Tribunal should have directed the Appellant to seek such a declaration before the appropriate forum i.e. SEBI.
  • Sabarmati Gas Limited Vs. Shah Alloys Limited in Civil Appeal No. 1669 of 2020 date: 04.01.2023; The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay caused due to statutory bar in initiating action against Industrial Company for recovering outstanding dues, has to be assigned as a sufficient cause for condoning such delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because sufficient cause is the cause for which a party could not be blamed.
  • M/s. Shekhar Resorts Limited Vs Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 8957 OF 2022 date 05.01.2023- The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the assesse cannot be denied relief under Sabka Vishwas (Legal Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for inability of the Appellant/company to deposit the settlement amount at the relevant time, due to legal impediment and the bar to make the payment of settlement amount in view of the moratorium under the IBC

• High Court

  • Tata Steel BSL Ltd. Vs. Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [LPA 37/2021 and C.M. Nos. 2664/2021, 2665/2021 & 2666/2021, date-13.01.2023; The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that avoidance application under IBC can be adjudicated even after conclusion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor and the Resolution Professional will not be functus officio in such case as adjudication of an avoidance application is independent of the resolution of the Corporate Debtor.
  • PVS Memorial Hospital & Ors. Vs. Dr. Satheesh Iype CRL.MC NO. 8157 OF 2022, date: 05.01.2023; The Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that the moratorium provision enshrined in Section 14 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would only apply to corporate debtors, and the natural persons mentioned under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would continue to be statutorily liable under the Act.
  • Reliance Communication Limited Vs. Rajendra P. Bansal in INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1161 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1539 OF 2012, date: 04.01.2023; The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the monies deposited in court by the Corporate Debtor cannot form a part of the assets/estate of the judgment debtor/Corporate Debtor upon insolvency as monies are ‘custodia legis’ and the said amount is unaffected by the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC once the CIRP commences. However, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that there is no bar on this Court from allowing the withdrawal of the amount by the Decree holder if the court deems fit.

• National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT )

  • M/s. Platinum Rent A Car (India) Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Quest Offices Limited in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.448/2022, date: 12.01.2023; The Hon’ble NCLAT held that the time period spent in obtaining a copy of judgment as per Section 12 (3) of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be excluded as Section 238 of IBC has an overriding effect. Hence, the appeal filed beyond the permissible limit as prescribed under Section 61 of the Code cannot be condoned.
  • Jindal Stainless Ltd. vs. Shailendra Ajmera, Resolution Professional of Mittal Corp Ltd. & Ors. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1058 of 2022 date:18.01.2023; The Hon’ble NCLAT held that one Resolution Applicant cannot be allowed to submit a revised plan when the Committee of Creditors adopted Swiss Challenge Method to find out the best plan. Therefore, the Hon’ble Tribunal directed the Resolution Professional to initiate fresh voting on the Resolution Plans received in the process.
  • Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay Kundra & Anr. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 46 of 2023, date: 18.01.2023 The Hon’ble NCLAT held that a landowner in a development agreement is not a Financial Creditor within the meaning of Section 5(8) of IBC since no amount was disbursed for the time value of money, therefore, cannot be included in the Committee of Creditor. The Bench observed that the development agreement states that the land owner is the collaborator and not the Financial Creditor. (iv) Hem Singh Bharana Vs M/s Pawan Doot Estate Pvt. Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1481 of 2022; date 05.01.2023; The Hon’ble NCLAT held that once the Committee of Creditors approve a Resolution Plan as per Section 31 of the Code, thereafter the Resolution Applicant is prohibited to modify or withdraw from the Plan under Section 12A of IBC and the same embargo has to be accepted on CoC from changing its stand.

• National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)

  • Vrundavan Residency Pvt. Ltd. v Mars Remedies Pvt. Ltd in CP (IB) CP (IB) 300/NCLT/AHM/2020 date: 12.01.2023; The Hon’ble NCLT has held that there cannot be simultaneous CIRP proceedings against the same Corporate Debtor against whom a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is already initiated, but the Supreme Court had stayed the CIRP proceedings
  • Bank of India v/s Shrenuj & Co. Ltd in IA No. 2328 of 2021 IN CP (IB) 190/MB/2018 date 24.01.2023; The Hon’ble NCLT held that the Resolution Professional is entitled to get fees till the time the Resolution Process is ongoing and the Resolution Professional manages the operations of the Corporate Debtor for the CIRP period or until an order approving the Resolution Plan under Section 31 (1) of the Code or appointment of a Liquidator under Section 34 IBC is passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
  • State Bank of India V.S Jet Airways India limited in IA 3398/2022, IA 3508/2022 IN C.P.(IB)2205/MB/2019, date: 13.01.2022;The Hon’ble NCLT held that Resolution Plan approved by the Tribunal has to be implemented without any modification. The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that despite best efforts, the Successful Resolution Applicant could not bring in the first tranche into the Corporate Debtor and make payment to the stakeholders as per Resolution Plan therefore the Adjudicating Authority granted exclusion of time period for infusion of funds and for Plan implementation, in the interests of justice and in achieving the primary objective of maximization of assets and resolution of Corporate Debtor.
  • Beni Gopal Singh vs EMC Limited in IA (IB)/1106(KB) 2022 in CP (IB)/1237(KB) 2018, date: 03.01.2023; The Hon’ble NCLT held that when the value of Resolution Plan given by the Prospective Resolution Applicant is lower than the original liquidation value it would automatically mean that Resolution Professional has arrived at the situation where the Corporate Debtor has to be referred for liquidation. The Hon’ble Tribunal was of the view that when a plan has already been received and its value is known to the CoC, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct a fresh valuation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.