courtkutchehry.com National Company Law Tribunal

Upfront Trading Pvt. Ltd. And Ors Vs. Sony Financial Services Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0067 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 in relation to Scheme of Amalgamation (For brevity "Scheme") proposed between the Applicants. While allowing the application NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, Partners, secured and unsecured creditors or dispensing the same.

Tech India Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0043 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") read with Rule 6 of the IBC, 2016 initiate corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of Corporate Debtor. While allowing the application NCLT held that when we shall consider the case in hand then we are of the considered view that since it is specifically mentioned in Section 8(2) of the Code that within ten days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice, the corporate-debtor is required to bring to the notice of the operational-creditor, the existence of dispute or the documents regarding the payment of debt, therefore, we have no option, but to hold that since the corporate-debtor fails to give the reply of the demand notice and raised the disputes, hence after his appearance in response to the notice, he cannot raise it...

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. Baldeo Metals Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0042 NCLT allowed the petition filed by the applicant under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), praying for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor on grounds of its inability to liquidate its financial debt. While allowing the petition NCLT held that when we shall consider the case in hand and the aforesaid decision and the provision then we find that in this case in hand, it is admitted fact that respondent had entered into an agreement and which is duly sanctioned by the applicant vide sanctioned letter dated 22.02.2018 and Channel Finance Facility was executed and modified on 09.03.2018 & 06.07.2018 and in that agreement, the name and address of the sellers is mentioned i.e. Vedanta and Hindalco and payment was directly made to the Vedanta and Hindalco in lieu of goods supplie...

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Limited Vs. Noida Medicare Centre Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0006 NCLT dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, therein to initiate the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. While dismissing the application NCLT held that when we shall consider the case in hand, then we find that the Corporate Debtor has taken the loan from the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. which was subsequently assigned by assignment letter to the applicant and that has not been paid and the documents enclosed with the application as well as the rejoinder shows that there is a default in payment of the said debt. We further find that the application is complete, the name of IRP is proposed and the IRP has also accepted the proposal which is at page 25 of the application and there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed IRP and amount is more than Rs. One Lakh is being the minimum threshold limit fixed under IBC, 2016, hence under su...

Stellar Corporation Vs. Sumanglam Impex Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0072 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 1BC, 2016') read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules')   with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), against the Respondent. While allowing the application NCLT held that it is pertinent to note that the Operational Creditor has placed on record all the invoices, stating that the Corporate Debtor itself had acknowledged the said invoices. Once the debt is shown as due, it is for Corporate Debtor to prove that there are no outstanding dues to be paid to the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor has time and again acknowledged its liability to pay the debt. However, no such payment has been made by the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor has attached the...

Skylark Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. D. Pal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0051 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant companies under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 and the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, for seeking appropriate orders/directions for dispensing with the respective meetings of the shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor and transferee companies. While allowing the application NCLT held that in light of mandatory statutory provisions of Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 we are not able to dispense meetings of shareholders/members of both the companies. In respect of unsecured creditors since the consent affidavits have been placed on record the prayer is allowed. In respect of secured creditors, since there is no consent affidavit in term of Section 230 (9) of the Companies Act, 2013 the prayer of dispensation of the meetings of secured creditors of both ...

Right Match Holdings Limited Vs. R Systems International Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0011 NCLT allowed the petition filed by the applicant under Sections 230-232, Section 234 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Applicant/Transferee Company in connection with the Scheme of Merger for merging its business with the Transferor Company. While allowing the petition NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors or dispensing the same.

Perigon Capital Vs. Gopaljee Dairy Foods Private Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0004 NCLT dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, praying therein to  initiate CIRP against the Respondent/Corporate Debtor. While dismissing the application NCLT held that in the light of provision we shall consider the case in hand and we find, in view of Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code. If the notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility in that case the Adjudication Authority has no option but to reject the application. Since, there is existence of dispute which has been raised prior to the issuance of demand notice, therefore, the prayer of applicant is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, we hereby DISMISS the application.

Orange Associates Private Limited And Ors Vs. Orange Education Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0032 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 and the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, for the purpose of the approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation. While allowing the application NCLT held that in view of the foregoing, upon considering the approval accorded by the members and creditors of the Petitioner companies to the proposed Scheme, and the affidavits filed by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the report of official liquidator, there appears to be no impediment in sanctioning the present Scheme.

Netmeds Marketplace Limited Vs. Madhatters Voyage Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0045 NCLT dismissed the application filed by Petitioner/Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, praying therein to initiate CIRP against the Respondent/Corporate Debtor. While dismissing the application NCLT held that if we shall consider the terms and conditions of the courier service agreement along with the definitions, which we have referred in the aforementioned para, then we are of the considered view that on the basis of this courier service agreement, it is the respondent who renders their service and it was not the applicant who renders the service. Therefore, in view of Section 5(21) the amount which the applicant claim does not come under the definition of operational debt and since the amount claimed by the applicant does not come under the definition of operational debt. ...

Micra Systems Private Limited Vs. Masters India Private Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0002 NCLT dismissed the application filed by Petitioner/Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, praying therein to initiate CIRP against the Respondent/Corporate Debtor. While dismissing the application NCLT held that therefore, if we shall consider the case in hand in the light of the decisions then we find that in the case in hand also there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the terms and conditions of the agreements, payments of the salaries, engagement of the employees and other issues. Hence in view of Section 9(5)(2) of IBC, 2016, if notice of disputes has been received by the Operational Creditor or there is a record of disputes in the information utility in that case the adjudicating authority has no option but to reject the application. Here, in the case in...

Mgshahani And Co. Delhi Private Limited Vs. EM GEE ESS Rentals Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0067 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 in relation to Scheme of Arrangement (For brevity "Scheme") proposed between the Applicants. While allowing the application NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, Partners, secured and unsecured creditors or dispensing the same.

Kohinoor India (P) Ltd Vs. Container Corporation Of India Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0007 NCLT dismissed the application filed by the IRP under Section 12A of the IBC praying therein to allow the operational creditor to withdraw the application admitted under Section 9 of the IBC along with the direction to the Corporate Debtor to pay the remaining expenses/remuneration of the IRP. While dismissing the application NCLT held that since, no CoC has been constituted and earlier application was filed on behalf of Operational Creditor but subsequently the IRP received Form FA and filed this application along with Form FA and it is mentioned in the application that he received the expense of IRP till 14.11.2019, but IRP claimed that from 15.1 1.2019 till date amounting to Rs.1,03850/- are pending but no detail has been given, therefore, we think it proper to direct the IRP to file the details of the expenses incurred after 15.11.2019 by filing separate application thereafter same will be c...

Kalyankari Suppliers Private Limited And Ors Vs. Shiv Coal Benification And Power Private Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0015 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 in relation to Scheme of Amalgamation (For brevity "Scheme") proposed between the Applicants. While allowing the application NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, Partners, secured and unsecured creditors or dispensing the same.

In Re_ SKN Haryana City Gas Distribution Private Limited And Ors Vs., (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0050 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 and 60 and 62 of Limited Partnership Act, 2008 and the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, for seeking appropriate orders/directions for dispensing with the respective meetings of the shareholders and unsecured creditors of the demerged company and the meetings of the designated partners, secured creditors and unsecured creditors of the Resulting LLP's No. 1 and 2 in connection with the proposed Scheme of Arrangement contemplated between the applicant companies/firms. While allowing the application NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, Partners, secured and unse...

In Re_ Economy Hotels India Private Limited Vs., (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0009 NCLT dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 66(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for confirming the reduction of share capital While dismissing the application NCLT held that we observe that the company has not met the specific requirement of Section 66 of the Companies Act by passing 'Special Resolution' for reduction of share capital. The Company has also not complied with the requirements of its own Articles of Association. We are left with no choice but to reject the present application in view of the fact that there is no special resolution for reduction of share capital as prescribed under Section 66 of the Companies Act 2013 and as required in Article 9 of Articles of Association of the company. Section 66 of Companies Act also requires this Tribunal to approve the minutes of resolution passed by the Company which has been passed as ordinary resolution as against the requirement...