Tag: NCLAT

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 ...
Read More
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...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty

This Supreme Court judgement clarifies that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not mandated to issue a second, separate show-cause notice specifically proposing the penalty. A single notice, which forwards the investigation report alleging contravention and invites a reply, constitutes sufficient compliance with natural justice. The legal scheme envisages a consolidated hearing on both liability and penalty, with the appellate body serving as a check against disproportionate penalties. Facts Of The Case: An information was filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) by M/s Crown Theatre against the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) and its office-bearers. The complaint alleged that KFEF, along with its President and General Secretary, engaged in anti-compe...
Read More
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,...
Read More
Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”
2Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It holds that allottees with agreements structured for assured returns or buy-back clauses, without a genuine intent to possess the property, are speculative investors. Such investors are barred from initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC, as the Code is not a recovery mechanism for speculative investments. Facts Of The Case: This case consolidates four civil appeals concerning the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against real estate developers by individual allottees. The primary appellant, Mansi Brar Fernandes, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Gay...
Read More
Verified Claim is Key: Supreme Court Distinguishes Between Timely and Belated Homebuyers in Insolvency
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Verified Claim is Key: Supreme Court Distinguishes Between Timely and Belated Homebuyers in Insolvency

The Supreme Court held that a homebuyer's claim, once verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of creditors, must be honoured as per the plan's provisions for verified claims. It cannot be relegated to a residuary clause meant for belated or unverified claims, as this would misapply the approved resolution plan. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, residents of Bengaluru, booked an apartment in 2010 in the 'IREO Rise (Gardenia)' project developed by M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited. They executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement in 2011 and paid Rs. 57,56,684 out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368. The Corporate Debtor failed to deliver possession by the agreed date of November 2013. The appellants initially filed a consumer complaint, which wa...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Fraudulent Share Transfer Struck Down: Key Takeaways from the Satori Global Judgement
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Fraudulent Share Transfer Struck Down: Key Takeaways from the Satori Global Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that the NCLT has wide jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, to adjudicate on allegations of fraud, oppression, and mismanagement when integral to the complaint. It upheld that acts violating the Articles of Association and statutory provisions, including invalid share transfers and board meetings, constitute oppression, empowering the Tribunal to grant comprehensive relief. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Mrs. Shailja Krishna, a majority shareholder holding over 98% of a private company, and her husband, Mr. Ved Krishna. In December 2010, during a strained marital relationship, Mrs. Krishna allegedly resigned from her directorship and executed a gift deed transferring her entire shareholding to her mother-in-law. She contended s...
Read More
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 ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Property Can Be Returned During Insolvency If Not Needed
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Property Can Be Returned During Insolvency If Not Needed

This Supreme Court judgment affirms the paramountcy of the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It clarifies that the moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) does not bar the return of possession of a corporate debtor's leased asset when such a decision is a conscious business choice made by the CoC and the Resolution Professional to alleviate a financial burden on the estate. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over the possession of a property leased by Nandini Impex Private Limited, the corporate debtor. The appellants had provided loans to the company, secured by the title deeds of the property's front and rear portions. Following a default, the property was conveyed to the appellants through separate deeds ...
Read More
Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC

The Supreme Court held that entries in a company’s balance sheet, when read in the context of surrounding circumstances and previous financial statements, can constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC. The Court clarified that the exclusion period under its COVID-19 limitation order applied from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, making the application timely. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., extended a term loan of ₹30 crores to the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., on 27.02.2015, secured by a pledge of shares. The respondent's account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.03.2018. The appellant fi...
Read More