On February 21, 2024, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the case of Kiran Martin Gulla RP of Vardharaja Foods Pvt. Ltd. held that when an extension to complete the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is granted by the Adjudicating Authority, then such period will be calculated form the date on which the Adjudicating Authority passes such an order.
Brief Facts
On October 4, 2023, a 2 (two) judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and Sunview Assets Pvt Ltd. held that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ("Constitution”), being inherent in nature, are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred by statute.
Brief Facts
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has in the case of SVA Family Welfare Trust & Anr v. Ujaas Energy Limited & Ors inter alia held that a resolution plan can contain a clause which extinguishes security interest, such as personal guarantees, after paying compensation to the financial creditor in whose favour such security interest was created.
On July 2, 2024, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”), in the case of Sanjay Dhingra vs.
In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors.
In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors. v Adjudicating Authority and Anr.1, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) inter alia upheld the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (“NCLT”) to direct the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, after the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, in light of Section 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 20162 (“IBC”).
On August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors1, while dismissing the civil appeal filed by Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
A 2 (two) member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the matter of Consortium of Prudent ARC Ltd. vs. Mr. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors has applied the ratio in the judgment of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. Vs. Torrent Investments Private Limited to hold that the committee of creditors of Meenakshi Energy Limited (“CoC”) in its commercial wisdom can allow resolution applicants to submit revised resolution plans through the challenge process.
The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of M. K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr., has held that, while commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) must be respected, certain factors having a material bearing on the process of approval of the resolution plan should also be borne in mind.
In its decision in Shailesh Verma, Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a 3 (three)member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that continuation of electricity supply to a corporate debtor during the subsistence of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is subject to payment for such supply.
Brief Facts