NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 7, 12, 15, 21(1), 30(6), 31, 33, 33(I)(A), 33(2), 52, 53, 56, 60(5) OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND REGULATION 6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CORPORATE PERSONS) REGULATIONS, 2016


Sudha Rani Tayal And Ors Vs. Vintron Communications Pvt. Ltd. And Ors, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0037

NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 60(5) of the IBC praying therein to pass an order for winding up/Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. While allowing the application NCLT held that the provision quoted in the aforementioned paras shows that Section 33(l)(a) says Where the Adjudicating Authority before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under section 56, as the case may be, does not receive a resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30 then adjudicating authority shall pass an order regarding the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, if we shall consider the case in hand in the light of aforesaid provision then we find, in the case in hand it is specifically mentioned in the application filed by the IRP that there is one financial creditor who is the mother of the Corporate Debtor and since she was related with the Corporate Debtor, therefore, although CoC was constituted but could not be convened. We further notice that it is specifically mentioned in the application that there is no tangible assets of the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor is not operational since 2014-2015 and under such circumstances it is submitted by the IRP that it is not possible to resolve the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. In our opinion, under the peculiar circumstances, the present application has been filed before the completion of CIRP and since no meeting was convened, therefore, IRP has not filed application under Section 33(2) of the IBC rather present application is filed under Section 60(5) of the IBC. If we shall read Section 60(5) along with the Section 33(l)(a) of the IBC then we are of the considered view since there is no other Financial Creditor except the mother of the Corporate Debtor and there is no tangible assets of the Corporate Debtor under such circumstances, we think it proper to allow the prayer of the IRP.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 9, 13(1)(B), 13(1)(C), 14, 14(1), 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Maloo Bhatt And Co. Vs. Pet Metal Private Limited, (2020) 08 NCLT CK 0024 NCLT allowed the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor for the amount of debt related to invoice raised for audit fees and other professional work. While allowing the appeal NCLT held that the amount of debt is more than Rs. 1 lacs which is not barred by law of limitation. The said amount has not been paid and no plausible defence has been put forward by Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has also provided MCA Data of the Corporate Debtor. The application is otherwise complete and defect free. It is also noted that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the IRP whose consent is on record. Hence, he can be appointed to conduct Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Accordingly, we admit this application and order.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 133, 230, 231, 232 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND RULE 3, 3(2) OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016

Image
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.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 8(1), 8(2), 9, 9(5)(1), 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Centuary Road Transport Pvt. Ltd Vs. Tyson Retail Services Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0044 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the IB Code for initiation of the CIRP of Corporate Debtor.   While allowing the application NCLT held that in view of Section 8, after the receiving of the demand notice delivered under Section 8(1) of the IB Code the Corporate Debtor is required to send the reply to demand notice or raised the pre-existing dispute or show the documents regarding the payment of the unpaid debt but here as we noticed that the Corporate Debtor has neither raised the pre-existing dispute nor filed any document to show that the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. If we shall consider the case in hand in the light of aforesaid provision then we find that herein the case in hand neither pre-existing dispute is raised nor payment of the unpaid Operation Debt is made, the application is complete and the ...
Read more