- Pradeep Madhukar More Suspended Director of Syntex Trading & Agency PVT LTD VS Central bank of India,
Citation- Pradeep Madhukar More Suspended Director of Syntex Trading & Agency PVT LTD vs Central bank of India Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.837 of 2023 NCLAT- New Delhi, Decided by Ashok Bhushan, J. 09.06.2022.
Ratio – An application for corporate insolvency under Section 7, IBC is maintainable against a corporate entity for violation of an agreement for one-time restructuring of the financial debt of the company, even if the original default debt is exempted under Section 10A, IBC i.e. falls within the exempted period for Covid distressed assets.
2. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTTRAL TAX & VS RAKESH SINGALA,
Citation- Office of the assistant commissioner of central tax Anr vs Rakesh Singala, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1215 of 2022 NCLAT- New Delhi, Decided by Ashok Bhushan, J. 04.01.2023.
Ratio – The liquidator can under the provisions of the IBC file application before the tax authorities under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act seeking refund of tax amounts. The same would not be barred under Section 33 of the IBC i.e. such proceedings shall not be estopped by the moratorium imposed by the corporate insolvency resolution process.
3. Rajendra Naidu VS Amma Construction India PVT LTD,
Citation- J Rajendra Naidu VS Amma Construction India PVT LTD, CP (IB) No.76/BB/2022 NCLT Bangalore, Decided by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) T. Krishnavalli, Member (Judicial) & Hon’ble Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Member (Technical) 08.09.2023.
Ratio – Interest cannot be clubbed with principal in order to meet the threshold requirement under Section of IBC for initiation of corporate insolvency.
4. R. Raghavendran vs C. Raja John & ANR,
Citation- R. Raghavendran vs C. Raja John & ANR, Civil Appeal No. 2552/2022, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1207 Supreme court India Decided by HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL 13.09.2023.
Ratio – Promoters pf companies with MSMEs may have exceptions from competing with other resolution applicants. In accordance with IBC framework for dealing with such exceptional circumstances and ensures a quick resolution in insolvency cases, such promoters are exempt from competing with other resolution applicants.
5. EDAC Engineering Ltd vs Industrial Fans (India) Pvt. Ltd,
Citation- EDAC Engineering Ltd vs Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos. 2080 and 4609 of 2021, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6010 High Court of Madras Decided by HON’BLE BEFORE ABDUL QUDDHOSE 31.08.2023.
Ratio – Fees payable to an Arbitrator has to be treated as CIRP costs and to be treated as preferential payments and moratorium u/s 14 of IBC does not apply on fee payable to an Arbitrator.
6. Corporate exits under C-PACE now in 100 days instead of 180 days: MCA secy
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has expedited the corporate exit process from 180 days to 100 days in the current financial year through its Centre for Processing Accelerated Corporate Exit (C-PACE)
7. N.S. Balaji VS Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal & ANR
Citation- N.S. Balaji VS Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal & ANR, (C) No(s). 21476- 21477/2023 (SC 1266) Supreme court of India, Decided by SANJIV KHANNA AND S.V.N. BHATTI, 03.10.2023
Ratio – The karta of HUF is entitled to mortgage property of HUF even if minor has undivided interest. The son(s) or other members need not be consenting parties, but may only challenge the act of the karta if alienation not necessary for the betterment of the estate.
- KAKINADA CHIT FUNDS vs CHUKKALA SATYANARAYANA & ANR,
Citation-Kakinada chit funds VS Chukkala Satyanarayana & ANR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.853 OF 2007, Decided by HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU 14.09.2023.
Ratio – Complaint under NI Act is not maintainable if the cheque amount is greater than the legal debt amount due. In the present case the debt due was for Rs. 25,000/- but cheque was for Rs. 75,000/-.
- Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd & ORS,
Citation- Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.& ORS Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 742 OF 2023, NCLAT NEW DELHI Decided by HON’BLE Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) 19.05.2023.
Ratio – The scope and jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under IBC being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance.
- Credberg Advisors India PVT LTD vs Platinum Holdings PVT LTD,
Citation-Credberg Advisors India PVT LTD vs Platinum Holdings PVT LTD, 2023 SCC Online NCLT 12 Decided by Before Deepti Mukesh, Member (Judicial) and Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) 01.01.2023.
Ratio – In the present case, the demand notice sent by the Operational Creditor i.e. the Petitioner had typographical error, which was subsequently rectified. Held, a mistake in the demand notice does not render the same defective unless corporate debtor is able to show that prejudice was suffered by result of the defect.
- Varun vs Amith Khanna & ORS,
Citation- Varun vs Amit Khanna & ORS, High Court of Delhi – Crl.M.C. 3602/2022 & Crl.M.A. 15086/2022 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5893 Decided by Hon’ble Member DINESH KUMAR SHARMA 21.09.2023.
Ratio – In the present case, the Petitioner was arraigned as Accused in cheque bounce case arising from dishonoured cheques in his capacity as director. However, it was noted by review of MCA form DIR – 12 that he had been appointed as director after date of issue of cheque. Hence, the case was quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Mr. Atanu Kumar Chatterjee & ORS vs Rolta Defence Technology System PVT LTD,
Citation- Atanu Kumar Chatterjee & ORS vs Rolta Defence Technology System PVT LTD, NCLT MUMBAI BENCH, COURT – III, C.P.(IB)-554(MB)/2022 Decided by Hon’ble Member(T) Shr Charanjeet Singh Gulati Hon’ble Member (J) SMT Lakshmi Gurung 06.10.2023.
Ratio – Workmen/Employees/Operational Creditors may file an application u/s 9 of IBC to initiate CIRP in an individual capacity or as a joint capacity by the authorized person, however, for a valid application u/s 9 of the Code, threshold limit for each individual is required to be one crore.
- Mysore Trade Links Ledager account vs Bava Industries,
Citation- Mysore Trade Links Ledager account vs Bava Industries, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, WRIT PETITION NO. 408 OF 2020 (GM- CPC) Decided by Hon’ble JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT 25.09.2023.
Ratio – In the present case arises out of writ petition challenging denial of IA seeking leave of the trial court to file written statement and hear on IA for deposit of security under Order XXXVIII of the CPC on grounds that security under Order XXXVIII which had previously been granted had not been deposited. The Hon’ble High Court held that failing to file security shall not result in forfeiture of right to file written statement as there is separate punishment of arrest under Order XXXVIII CPC.
17– Shree Ishwar Satyanarayan Jee vs State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Basic Education & Ors
Citation- Shree Ishwar Satyanarayan Jee ORS & Partha Brother & ORS, HIGH COURT OF Calcutta, S.A.13 of 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 3519 Decided by Hon’ble JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, 11.10.2023.
Ratio – Remand of suit is not necessary when a suit has been decreed ex parte without recording any evidence.
18– Deepak Dewvedi & ORS vs State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Basic Education & Ors
Citation- Deepak Dewvedi & ORS vs State of U.P Through principal secretary Basic Education & ORS, HIGH COURT OF Allahabad, WRIT A No. – 7450 of 2023 Decided by Hon’ble JUSTICE Abdul Moin, 6.10.2023.
Ratio – Held, a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of order of Supreme Court of India cannot be filed in High Court having territorial jurisdiction and must be filed in the Hon’ble Apex Court.
- Indus Biotech PVT LTD vs Kotak India venture
Citation – Indus Biotech PVT LTD vs Kotak India Venture Supreme court of India Arbitration petition © No 48 of 2019 with Civil Appeal No 1070 of 2021 Decided on. 26-03-2021 by Hon’ble S.A Bobde, C.J And A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian
Ratio – In the present case, the Petitioners had filed application under Section 11 for appointment of arbitrator for dispute regarding conversion of convertible preference shares to equity shares. The Respondents had filed Petition under Section 7 IBC for insolvency arising from redemption amount. Held, primary dispute between the parties was regarding the conversion formula to be adopted for the conversion of the preference shares to equity shares and thus since pre-existing dispute is present, the Section 7 Petition is not maintainable.
- Yamini Manohar vs T.K.D. Keerthi
Citation – Yamini Manohar vs T.K.D. Keerthi Supreme court of India Decided on. 13-10-2023 Special Leave Petition Civil Diary No 32275/2023 and CRP IPD No 4/2023 by Hon’ble Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N Bhatti
Ratio – In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a commercial suit regarding intellectual property where relief claimed is that of cease and desit of use of such IP, pre-institution mediation is not required as there is clearly urgent interim relief prayed for.
- KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD VS PRATIM BAYAL & OF BIRLA TYRES LTD
Citation – Kesoram Industries LTD vs Pratim Bayal & of Birla tyres LTD Decided on. 18-10-2023 NCLT Special Bench Kolkata Company Petition (IB) No 250/2021 by Hon’ble Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial) Balraj Joshi (Technical)
Ratio – It is necessary for there to be disbursement of money to provide existence of financial debt for filing petition under Section 9, IBC. In the present case, the Hon’ble NCLT held that there was merely transfer of money between accounts without disbursal and hence, the petition was not maintainable.
- MADHYANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS SHASHI CABLE THRU.
Citation – Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam LTD vs Shashi Cable Thru Decided on. 13-10-2023 High court of Allahabad 2023 SCC OnLine All 2013 Matters under Article 227 No: 3384 of 2023 Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhatia
Ratio – Held, Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which bars any petition in any Court other than the Court where the first petition in relation to arbitration agreement was filed does not apply to petitions for the enforcement of the arbitration award.
- ARRHUM TRADELINK PVT LTD VS VINEETA MAHESHWARI LIQUIDATOR OF KANERIA GRANITO LTD.
Citation – Arrhum Tradelink Pvt ltd vs Vineeta Maheshwari Liquidator of Kaneria Granito Ltd Decided on. 18.10.2023 NCLT Ahmedabad Division bench Hon’ble (Judicial) member Shammi Khan (Technical) Member Kaushalendra kumar singh
Ratio – Held, upon acquisition of a corporate debtor through auction after liquidation, unpaid liabilities/existing share capital which are to be extinguished are to be credited to the capital reserve as per the applicable Indian Accounting Standards and accumulated losses on the balance sheet prior to acquisition shall be set off against such capital reserve.
- VINAY KUMAR SINGAL RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR PG VS MAHESH BAJAJ.
Citation – Vinay Kumar Singal Resolution Professional for Pg vs Mahesh Bajaj. Decided on. 10.10.2023 NCLAT Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Technical) Member Naresh Salecha
Ratio – One of the operational creditors of the Corporate Debtor, representing 10% of the total debt owed by the Corporate Debtor, filed an application before the NCLT for issuance of directions to the Petitioner for providing the information memorandum and other relevant documents to him, since he was a participant of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Held, the information memorandum shall be provided to members of the CoC and there is no provision that participants shall be provided a copy.
Disclaimer: This material and the information contained herein prepared by Anirudh Associates is intended to provide general information on a subject or subjects and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s). Anirudh Associates is not, by means of this material, rendering professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision. Anirudh Associates shall not be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this material.
