Corporate insolvency - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions

10Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions

The Supreme Court held that a defective affidavit filed in support of a Section 7 IBC application is a curable procedural irregularity and does not render the application non est. The Court emphasized that the mandatory notice under Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC must be specifically issued to the applicant before rejection, and procedural rules should not defeat substantive rights. Facts Of The Case: HDFC Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for a defaulted loan of ₹5.5 crores. The application, verified on July 26, 2023, was supported by an affidavit deposed on July 17, 2023. The NCLT Ahmedabad Bench rejected the petition at the threshold, citing this date discrepancy in the affidavit as a fatal ...

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

The Supreme Court held that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) represent an equity investment, not a financial debt under the IBC. Preference shareholders are not creditors, and redemption is contingent upon company profits under the Companies Act. Therefore, they cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for non-redemption. Facts Of The Case: EPC Constructions India Limited (EPCC) held outstanding receivables from Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited for construction work. In 2015, to help Matix meet lender-mandated debt-equity ratios, the parties agreed to convert ₹400 crores of dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS). Matix subsequently allotted CRPS worth ₹250 crores to EPCC. When the shares matured after three years, M...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Backs Creditors & JSW, Shuts Door on Promoter Interference

22Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Backs Creditors & JSW, Shuts Door on Promoter Interference

This Supreme Court judgment reinforces the finality and binding nature of an approved resolution plan under the IBC. It held that claims not part of the Request for Resolution Plan (RfRP) or the final plan are extinguished, preventing "hydra-headed" post-approval claims. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in approving the plan is paramount and not open to judicial review on merits. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL), initiated in 2017. JSW Steel Limited was selected as the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), and its resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and later by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in September 2019. However,...

Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground

15Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground

The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an NCLT order under the IBC must be filed within 30 days from the date of its pronouncement. It reiterated that mandatory filing of a certified copy of the impugned order is integral to a valid appeal, and non-compliance renders the appeal barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated June 23, 2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor. The respondent, DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the NCLT's decision. The ...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Loan Case, Says Mere Default Doesn’t Make It a Crime

13Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Loan Case, Says Mere Default Doesn’t Make It a Crime

The Supreme Court held that a loan transaction creates a debtor-creditor relationship, and a mere breach of its terms does not automatically constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC without evidence of dishonest intention. The Court clarified that such disputes, arising from commercial transactions, are primarily civil in nature and a preliminary inquiry is permissible before registering an FIR. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a director of M/s Benlon India Ltd., availed three loans from the first respondent, Hero Fincorp, for purchasing machinery. While the first two loans were used for the intended purpose, a fire destroyed the plant shortly after the disbursement of the third loan. Consequently, this third loan was converted into an unsecured corporate loan. Benlon ...

Supreme Court Clarifies IBC Appeal Deadlines: No Delay Condonation Beyond 45 Days

7May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies IBC Appeal Deadlines: No Delay Condonation Beyond 45 Days

The Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must strictly adhere to the 30-day limitation period, extendable by only 15 days upon showing "sufficient cause." The NCLAT cannot condone delays beyond this 45-day window, as the IBC’s time-bound framework overrides equitable considerations. Facts Of The Case: Tata Steel’s resolution plan for Rohit Ferro-Tech Ltd. was approved by the NCLT on 07.04.2022. Respondent No. 1, a minority shareholder, filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 23.05.2022 (e-filing) and 24.05.2022 (physical filing), seeking condonation of a 15-day delay. The NCLAT allowed the delay, citing Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the 30-day period ended on a court holiday (08.05.2022, a Sunday). Tata Steel challenged t...