INTRODUCTION

Recently, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has passed an order reiterating that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the successful resolution applicant cannot be permitted to be withdraw its plan.

RELEVANT FACTS

In a recent case Sagufa Ahmed & ors. V. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & ors.^[1], the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice S.A.

A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.

State Bank of India v. M/s. Metenere Limited^[1]

In a recent case, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), vide its ruling dated May 22, 2020 upheld the order passed by respective National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") dated January 4, 2020 with respect to substitution of appointment of an ex-employee of the Financial Creditor as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Factual Background

Introduction

In a recent case, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) permitted exit or withdrawal from Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") after Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") was appointed and moratorium was imposed in the case. The said order by NCLAT acted as a relief to corporate debtors, as it has paved way for out of Court settlement between the disputed parties. The said order was passed by NCLAT in the case of Vivek Bansal vs Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent case, the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), New Delhi in M/s Brand Reality Services Ltd. v. M/s Sir John Bakeries India Pvt.

NCLAT: Decree holder cannot be classified as a financial creditor for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 II. Supreme Court: Limitation period for an application under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of CIRP is three years from the date of default III. NCLAT: IBC has no bar for the 'Promoter' to file 'resolution application', even if otherwise not eligible in terms of Section 29A IV. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: An analysis

In a recent order issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT“) in the case of Sushil Ansal Vs. Ashok Tripathi¹, the NCLAT has held that a decree-holder cannot be treated as a financial creditor for the purpose of triggering insolvency proceedings against a company.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT) in the case of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok Tripathi and Ors, has reiterated that a decree-holder though covered under the definition of creditor under Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not fall within the class of financial creditors and therefore, a decree holder cannot initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor with an object to execute a decree.