e Juris...Sunil Pant CEO-IIIPI I am happy to present to our readers the second edition of our digital book – e-Juris. The current year has seen interesting judicial pronouncements

Electronic Judgement References

JuriseSeries 2019 / 2

Justice (Retd.) A.R. DaveChairman-IIIPI

I am happy to note that e-Juris, the digital case update brought out by the Knowledge SBU (K-SBU) of the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI (IIIPI), has found a good response from various users.

In the recent past IBC stakeholders would have witnessed significant changes in the approach to earlier vexatious issues. These developments, arising from the diverse streams of developing jurisprudence, range from decisions recorded by NCLT to NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court on Corpo-rate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRP). Ready availability of these orders/judgements is often the most useful source for keeping track of the fast-changing legal requirements.

In this context, the e-Juris initiative of K-SBU of IIIPI plays an important supportive role. Not only does it provide a ready access to the orders and judgements of the Adjudicating Authority and appellate bod-ies, but also facilitates interpretations and elucidations essential for a practical application of the law.

The second edition of the digital book e-Juris brought out by the Knowledge SBU of the Indian Insti-tute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI (IIIPI) presents an updated compilation of the decisions of the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Authority and Apex Court for the period from October 2018 to March 2019. This edition of the eBook will provide the Insolvency Practitioners, as in the previous ver-sion, with a ready reference to the new case laws in the fast-evolving landscape of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

I am confident that the initiative by IIIPI will continue to provide value to all stakeholders and invite the users to provide feedback to the K-SBU for taking up new and emerging areas for coverage.

My best wishes to IIIPI and the readers.

Dear Insolvency Professional,

Chairman’s Message

President’s Message

CA. Prafulla P. ChhajadPresident

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

I am pleased to note that the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI (IIIPI), had introduced a welcome innovation by way of their electronic book, “e-Juris” containing recent orders of various judicial bodies. This is the second issue of “e-juris” and I am happy to see that the initiative is very much on course and continues to provide valuable inputs to the readers.As the newest profession in India, Insolvency Professionals (IPs) have carved out a distinct status for themselves by engaging in 1143 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRPs) as on March 31, 2019. This brings into sharp focus the need for equipping these professionals with up to date and readily usable information. Even as the adjudicating authority and the apex court fashion appropriate responses to emerging demands from the existing system, the ever-shifting landscape is set to throw up exciting new challenges from the extension of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code to Individual, Group and Cross-Border Insolvencies.The above scenario requires a sound understanding of the applicable legal framework and a new approach to reaching out to users for optimizing outcomes. As such, ease of access to case laws and orders is likely to be of increasing importance for the insolvency practitioners. The future presents attractive opportunities for IPs and other stakeholders to leverage their knowledge of contemporary jurisprudence for resolving complex CIRPs or Liquidation Matters. In this scenario, the need for a reliable reference point for key judicial information cannot be underestimated. “e-Juris” and its associated issues are expected to meet this requirement to a large extent.

My best wishes to all the Insolvency Professionals and Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI.


Sunil PantCEO-IIIPI

I am happy to present to our readers the second edition of our digital book – e-Juris.

The current year has seen interesting judicial pronouncements which contributed to the development of the IBC regime. The central theme for most of these judgments is (a) effective implementation of the Code, (b) maximization of value for all stakeholders, i.e. creditors, investors and shareholders, (c) fair and equitable treatment of all creditors irrespective of categorization and (d) defending against subversion of the spirit of the Code through effective control and related measures.The expected extension of insolvency and bankruptcy code to areas of personal guarantors of corporate borrowers, individual bankruptcies, group insolvencies, cross-border insolvencies are likely to throw up a vast set of opportunities and challenges for insolvency professionals.In the realm of the fast-changing landscape of emerging jurisprudence, the existing benchmarks of Insolvency and Bankruptcy regulations may well be substantially re-written. The effectiveness with which the above process progresses depends substantially on the ready accessibility of the practitioners to the body of law as it evolves. To continue with our endeavor to facilitate the task, the Knowledge SBU (K-SBU) of IIIPI has now published the 2nd volume of the decisions of the NCLAT, High Courts and Supreme Courts - “e-Juris”. In the present version, an attempt has been made to incorporate the suggestions provided in your feedback. We look forward to your continuing support through your suggestions which will help us to reinforce a collaborative approach for developing targeted initiatives.Best wishes


CEO’S Message

5

S No.

Name of the Parties

Case Reference & with date

SectionNo. Issue Adjudication/Gist

01 02 03 04 05 06

01

Sonia ModiVs.

Relan Buildwell Pvt. Ltd

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 205 of

2019

( 1st March,2019)

Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016.

Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules,2016

Settlement of the matter.

On settlement of the matter, withdrawal of appeal is allowed.

Click here for full judgement.

02

Mr. Sunil GhorawatVs.

M/s. Arvind Envisol Ltd. & Anr


2019

( 1st March,2019

Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Settlement of the matter.

Since parties reached settlement prior to constitution of ‘CoCs’, the order passed by AA

is set aside.


03

Sharad Gupta Vs.

Mr. Tajas Jatin Parikh, IRP


2019( 1st March,2019)

Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016

Insolvency application not signed by authorised person.

The application was signed by the Sr. Manager of ‘Financial Creditor’ who is authorised to

sign the application. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and it is

dismissed.


NCLAT CASES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2019

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/1st%20Mar%202019%20n%20the%20matter%20of%20Sonia%20Modi%20Vs.%20Relan%20Buildwell%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20205-2019_2019-03-12%2012:43:33.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/1st%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Suni%20lGhorawat%20Vs.%20Arvind%20Envisol%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(insolvency)%20No.%20100-2019_2019-03-12%2012:41:58.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/1st%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Sharad%20Gupta%20vs%20Mr.%20Tajas%20Jatin%20Parikh,%20IRP%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)207-2019%5d_2019-03-06%2017:31:18.pdf

6

04

Polyblend India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

M/s. Chaudhary Rubbers & Chemicals

Pvt. Ltd


2019

( 1st March,2019)


The parties may approach the AA for withdrawal of application for passing of

appropriate orders.


05

M/s. Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd. & Ors.

Vs.M/s. In-Time Garments

Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.


2019

( 1st March,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Pre-existing dispute.

The AA having noticed the pre-existing dispute, rightly rejected the insolvency

06

Alchemist Infra Ventures Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.Kiran Malhotra & Anr

Company Appeall (AT) (Insolvency) No. 113

of 2019

( 1st March,2019)


As the parties have reached settlement prior to constitution of the ‘CoCs’, the order passed

by AA is set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

application.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/1st%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Ms.%20Bhandari%20Hosiery%20Exports%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20vs%20Ms.%20In-Time%20Garments%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20143-2019%5d_2019-03-06%2017:23:33.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/1st%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Alchemist%20Infra%20Ventures%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20vs%20Kiran%20Malhotra%20&%20anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20113-2019%5d_2019-03-06%2017:21:19.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/1st%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Ployblend%20India%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20Ms.%20Chaudhary%20Rubbers%20&%20Chemicals%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20206-2019%5d_2019-03-06%2017:25:36.pdf

7

07

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao Vs.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

(ARCIL) & Anr.


2018

(7th March,2019)

Section 33(2) of I&B Code, 2016

Settlement of dues on completion of ‘Resolution Process’

No order of settlement can be passed on completion of the ‘Resolution Process’


08

Mr. Nalin Virji Shah Vs.

Mr. Satish Sadashiv Rane & Anr


2019.

(7th March,2019)


As the parties have settled the matter prior to constitution of the ‘CoCs’, the prayer

to withdraw the insolvency application is allowed.


09

Aircel Employees Representatives (AER)

Vs.Dishnet Wireless

Limited

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 730 & 731

of 2018.

(7th March,2019)

- Non-release of salary of the employees.

As salaries of working employees have since been paid, individual aggrieved employee,

if any, may represent the ‘Resolution Professional’.


10

Surender Vasudeva & Anr. Vs.

Crown Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.


2018.

(7th March,2019)


As parties have finally settled the matter before

Constitution of the ‘CoCs’, the insolvency application is allowed to be withdrawn.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/7th%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr.%20Hemnath%20meka%20Rao%20vs%20Asset%20Reconstruction%20Company%20(India)%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20696%20-%202-18%5d_2019-03-12%2015:29:05.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr.%20Nalin%20Virji%20Shah%20Vs.%20Mr.%20Satish%20Sadashiv%20Rane%20&%20Anr.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20No.%20208%20-2019_2019-03-14%2015:01:41.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/7th%20March%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Aircel%20Employess%20Representatives%20vs%20Dishnet%20Wireless%20Limited%20%5bCompany%20Appeal%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20730%20of%202018%5d_2019-03-12%2015:26:39.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/7th%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Surender%20Vasudec%20&%20anr.%20vs%20Crown%20Realtech%20Pvt.%20Ltd%20&%20anr.%20%5bCompany%20Appeal%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20797%20of%202018%5d_2019-03-12%2015:24:47.pdf

8

11

Mr. Abhay Kumar JainVs.

Narender Kumar & Anr


2018.

(7th March,2019)

Section 12A of I&B Code, 2016 Settlement of the claim.

As the withdrawal of application by the applicant has been accepted by AA, the

appeal stands disposed of as infructuous.


12

MMTC Ltd. Vs.

Sai Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.


2019.

(7th March,2019)


In view of the settlement of matter, before constitution of ‘COCs’, the order of

AA is set aside.


13

Sri Santosh Kumar Pareek

Vs. Sri Kailash Chandra

Agarwal


2019.

(7th March,2019)

Section 12A of I&B Code, 2016 Settlement of the matter.

On settlement of matter, application was accepted by AA.

As such, the appeal has become infructuous.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/7th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Abhay%20Kumar%20Jain%20Vs.%20Narender%20Kumar%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20664-2018_2019-03-12%2012:40:36.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/7th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20MMTC%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Sai%20Solphonates%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20138-2019_2019-03-12%2012:38:21.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/7th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sri%20Santosh%20Kumar%20Pareek%20Vs.%20Sri%20Kailash%20Chandra%20Agarwal%20CA%20(AT)%20Insolvency)%20No.%20704-2018_2019-03-12%2012:36:55.pdf

9

14

Sugan Choudhary Vs.

Khandelwal Busar Industries Pvt. Ltd. &

Anr.


2018

(8th March,2019)

Sections 8(1) & 9 of I&B Code, 201 Non-service of demand notice

As the Demand Notice was not served, the order passed by AA is set aside.

.


15Liberty House Group

Pte. Ltd. Vs. ARGL Ltd. & Anr.


2019.

(8th March,2019)


Imposition of cost of Rs 1,00,000/-

Observations made against appellant.

The observation made against appellant not to be construed to be a finding against

the ‘Liberty House’

2.The cost imposed is to be treated as litigation cost in favour of ‘ Corporate Debtor’

The order of AA stands modified to the above extent.


16

Rizwan Ahmad & Anr.Vs.

M/s. Sojitz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.


2019

(11th March,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Settlement of the matter .

Prayer to withdraw the application in view of the agreement reached between the parties,

is allowed. Accordingly, order passed by the of AA is set

aside


17

Avishek RoyVs.

1.Diamond Steel Enterprise

2. Ashok K. Dibrewala,3.Allahabad Bank


2018

(12th March,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Settlement of the matter .

Prior to constitution of ‘CoCs, the parties have reached settlement. Accordingly, the order

passed by the AA is set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/8th%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Sugan%20Choudhary%20vs%20Khandelwal%20Busar%20Industries%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20270%20-2018%5d_2019-03-12%2015:38:38.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/8th%20March%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Liberty%20house%20Group%20Pte%20Ltd.%20vs%20ARGL%20Ltd%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCompany%20Appeal%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2008%20of%202019%5d_2019-03-12%2015:33:49.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/11th%20Mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Rizwan%20Ahmad%20&%20anr.%20vs%20Ms%20Sojitz%20India%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20170%20-2019%5d_2019-03-14%2015:40:06.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/11th%20Mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Avishek%20Roy,%20Shareholder%20of%20Ms%20Reacon%20Engineers%20(India)%20Pvt.%20Ltd%20vs%20Diamond%20Steel%20Enterprise%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20794-2018%5d_2019-03-14%2015:43:25.pdf

10

18

State Bank of India Vs.

V. Mahesh, RP for Diamond

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.796 of

2018.

(13th March,2019)

Section 33 of I&B, 2016 Rejection of ‘Resolution Plan’

The application for liquidation has already been moved. The AA is to proceed in

accordance with law.


19

Sudeep Mahindra Shah & Anr.

Vs.Cornelian Properties

Pvt. Ltd.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.156 of

2019.

(13th March,2019)

1. Section 433(e) & 434 of Companies Act.2. Sections 8(1) & 9 of I&B Code,

2016.

Non- issuance of Demand Notice.

1. Transfer of application stood abated.2. Appellant may issue Demand Notice and

thereafter take appropriate steps.

Click here for full judgement..

20

E. Sivanandam & 23 Ors.Vs.

Sarang S. Kale & 3 Ors.


2019.

(13th March,2019)


Non- dealing with the claim of employees.

Appellants, who have not been paid, are allowed to file their individual claims.

‘Corporate Debtor’ on verification will pay the admitted dues.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/13th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20Vs.%20V.%20Mahesh,%20RP%20For%20Diamond%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20796-2018_2019-03-18%2015:30:13.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/13th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sudeep%20Mahendra%20Shah%20&%20Anr.%20Vs.%20Cornelian%20Properties%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency%20)%20No.%20156-2019_2019-03-18%2015:26:19.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/13th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20E.%20Sivanandam%20&%2023%20Ors.%20Vs.%20Sarang%20S.%20Kale%20&%203%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2027-2019_2019-03-18%2015:24:18.pdf

11

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

21

Gutupalli Srinivasa Rao & Anr.

Vs. M/s. Supraja Textiles

Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.


2018.

(13th March,2019)

- Non-appearance of appellants.

As no one appeared on behalf of the Appellants, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.


22

Ranvir Ranjit. Vs.

M/s Vijay R. Vakharia& 8 others


2018.

(15th March,2019)


1. Non-existence of a financial debt.2. Claim is time-barred by

limitation.3. Status of Creditor

The order passed by Adjudicating Authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity or

factual frailty. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.


23

1.MSTC LimitedVs.

Adhunik Metalliks Ltd. & Ors.

2. Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd.

Vs.State Bank of India &

Anr


2018 and 53 & 54 of 2019.

(15th March,2019)

Section 31(1) & 30(2)(f) of I&B

Code, 2016.

1.Non-payment of up front amount.

2. To treat the additional expenses as ‘Resolution Cost’.

1. The prayer to shift the ‘effective date’ of plan is rejected. However, another 30 days allowed

making upfront payment.

2. No case has been made out by the ‘MSTC Limited’ to treat additional expenses as a

‘Resolution Cost’.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/13th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Gutupalli%20Srinivasa%20Rao%20&%20Anr.%20Vs.%20Supraja%20Textiles%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20640-2018_2019-03-18%2015:22:35.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/15th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ranvir%20Ranjit%20Vs.%20Vijay%20R.%20Vakharia%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20646-2018_2019-03-18%2015:16:30.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/15th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20MSTC%20Limited%20&%20Ors.%20Vs.%20Adhunik%20Metalliks%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20519-2018,%2053%20&%2054-2019_2019-03-18%2015:11:30.pdf

12

24

Trade Affairs Vs.

Borkar Colorpacks Pvt. Ltd.


2018.

(18th March,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Non-existence of dispute.

There exist dispute with regard to supply of material. As such, the appeal stands

dismissed.


25

Gir Logistics Pvt. Ltd.Vs.

C. A. Kannan Tiruvengadam & Anr


2018.

(18th March,2019)

Sections & 31 of the I&B Code

2016,

To file a suit after completion of moratorium period.

The prayer to withdraw the appeal with liberty to take recourse of filing suit in terms of

section 60(6) of ‘Code’ is allowed.


26Asha Goyal

Vs. Pharma Traders Pvt Ltd


2018.

(19th March,2019)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No.726 of 2018.

(19th March,2019)

Condonation of delay.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal is rejected as 45 days had already expired by the

time appeal was filed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/18th%20Mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Trade%20Affairs%20vs%20Borkar%20Colorpacks%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20%20753-2018%5d_2019-03-24%2013:04:59.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/18th%20Mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Gir%20Logistics%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20C.A.%20Kannan%20Tiruvengadam%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20688-2018%5d_2019-03-24%2013:03:54.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/19th%20Mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Asha%20Goyal%20vs%20pharma%20Traders%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20726%20-%202018%5d_2019-03-24%2013:02:46.pdf

13

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

27Mr. Sharad Sanghi

Vs.Ms. Vandana Garg & Ors

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.461, 464 &

548 of 2018.

(19th March,2019)

Sections 7 & 31 of I&B Code, 2016

1. Lapse of a period of 270 days.2. To consider voting percentage

62.66 instead of 81.31 %.3. Reduction in timeline for

Resolution Plan

The process was conducted within the mandatory period of 270 days. Further, ‘CoCs’ had jurisdiction to consider change in opinion

(62.66 % to 81.31%). As such, the order passed by AA for liquidation of the Corporate

Debtor is set aside.

The case is remitted back to AA to approve the plan with modification.


28G. Sreevidhya Vs.

M/s. Karismaa Foundations Pvt. Ltd


2018(19th March,2019)


1.Status of Appellant2. Existence of dispute.

The order of the AA that the Appellant is ‘Operational creditor’ and declining to initiate

‘CIRP’ on account of pre-existence of dispute is unsustainable.

AA is directed to admit the application of Appellant as ‘Financial Creditor’


29

Pr. Director General of Income Tax (Admn. &

TPS)Vs.

M/s. Synergies Dooray Automotive Ltd. & Ors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 205 of 2017,309,559,671,759 of

2018(20th March,2019)


Status of ‘Income Tax’, ‘VAT’ or other statutory dues such as ‘

Municipal Tax’, ‘Excise Duty’ etc.

As statutory dues have direct nexus with operation of the Company, all such dues

come within the meaning of ‘Operational Debt’.

As such, no interference in the orders passed by AA.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/19th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr.%20Sharad%20Sanghi%20vs%20Ms%20Vandana%20Garg%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20461-2018%5d_2019-03-20%2019:13:58.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/19th%20mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20G.%20Sreevidhya%20vs%20Ms.%20Karismaa%20Foundations%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20494-%202018%5d_2019-03-24%2013:01:38.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/20th%20Mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Pr.%20Director%20General%20of%20Income%20Tax%20(Admn.%20&%20TPS)%20%20vs%20Ms%20synergies%20dooray%20Automative%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20205-2017%5d_2019-03-24%2013:00:01.pdf

14

30

Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave

Vs.Hema Manoj Shah &

Ors


2019.

(25th March,2019)


Non-handing over the properties to the ‘Resolution Professional’

As the appellant has not handed over the properties of ‘Corporate Debtor’, the AA to

take appropriate action to enable the ‘RP’ to take over the assets.

The appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by Appellant favouring

Registrar, NCLT.


31

Pankaj JajooVs.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd


2019.(28th March,2019)


The respondent is not a ‘Financial Creditor’

The insolvency petition is maintainable ,as observed from the records. Hence, the appeal

is dismissed.


32

Alloysmin Industries & Ors. Vs.

Punkaj Jain, R.P, Fenace Auto Ltd & Anr.


2018 and 05 of 2019.(28th March,2019)


Discrimination between ‘Financial Creditors’ and ‘Operational

Creditors’.

On acceptance of revised ‘Resolution Plan’ by the appellants, the revised part of plan

stands approved.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/25th%20Mar%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Gaurav%20Hargovindbhai%20Dave%20vs%20Hema%20Manoj%20shah%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20168-2019%5d_2019-03-26%2015:01:37.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Apr/28th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Pankaj%20Jajoo%20Vs.%20Asset%20Reconstruction%20Company%20(India)%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20312-2019_2019-04-05%2017:48:25.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Apr/28th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Alloysmin%20Industries%20&%20Ors.%20Vs.%20Punkaj%20Jain,%20R.P,%20Fenace%20Auto%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20769-2018%20&%2005-2019_2019-04-05%2017:50:27.pdf

15

33

Dhinal ShahVs.

Bharati Defence Infrastructure Ltd. &

Anr.


2019.

(29th March,2019)


Adverse observations made against Resolution Professional

Without issuing notice and impleading Resolution Professional, the AA is not

competent to make any observations against him. For lapse, If any, the matter should have

been referred to IBBI.


34

S.S. Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd

Vs. Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd.

& Ors

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 72,534

&585 of 2019.(29th March,2019)


Delay in approval of the ‘Resolution Plan’

The AA is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two weeks.


35Sheena Adarsh Vs.

Union Bank of India & Anr.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 690 &

742 of 2018.(29th March,2019)


Admission of application without notice to CD.

As the notice was issued and the Advocates appeared on behalf to CD, the Adjudicating Authority rightly admitted the application.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Apr/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Dhinal%20Shah%20Vs%20Bharati%20Defence%20Infrastructure%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr%20CA%20(AT)%20No.175%20-2019_2019-04-11%2015:05:41.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Apr/29th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20S.S.%20Natural%20Resources%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20Vs.%20Orissa%20Metaliks%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20534%20&%20585-2018%20&%2072-2019_2019-04-07%2012:33:24.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Apr/29th%20Mar%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sheena%20Adarsh%20&%20Mr.%20Sheeju%20Purushothaman%20Vs.%20Union%20Bank%20of%20India%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20690%20&%20742-2018_2019-04-07%2012:37:37.pdf

16

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

01Ajay Sadana

Vs.Acteon India Pvt. Ltd.

Review Application No. 01 of 2019 IN Company

Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 161 of 2017.

(1ST February,2019)

S Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Review of orders.

First three lines of the observations are expunged from the order.


02

M/s. Prasad GempexVs.

Star Agro Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors


of 2018.

(1ST February,2019)

Section 60 of I&B Code, 2016 Rejection of claim.

Appeal No.291:AA to pass appropriate order u/s 31 of the

Code.

Further, appellants in both cases are allowed to file their claims against

respective CD u/s 60(6) of the Code.


03

Vandana Industries Ltd. Vs.

IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. & Anr

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 630 2018.

(1ST February,2019)

Section 10 & 33(2) of I&B Code, 2016

Filing of insolvency petition without approval of shareholders.

The insolvency application filed by the Board of Directors is not maintainable.

As such, the order passed by the AA is illegal and set aside.

Further, the parties have settled the matter; no further order is required to be passed.


NCLAT CASES FOR THE MONTH OF FEB.,2019

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/1st%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ajay%20Sadana%20Vs.%20Acteon%20India%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20161-2017_2019-02-10%2013:46:57.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Prasad%20Gempex%20Vs%20Star%20Agro%20Marine%20Exports%20Pvt%20Ltd%20&%20Ors%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20291%20-2018_2019-02-06%2019:10:20.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/Vandana%20Industries%20Ltd%20Vs%20IL%20&%20FS%20Financial%20Services%20Ltd%20&%20Anr%20CA%20(AT)%20No.630-2018_2019-02-06%2019:06:28.pdf

17

04

Kushal Ltd.Vs.

Ramchandra D. Choudhary & Ors.


2019.

(1ST February,2019)

Section 31 of I&B Code, 2016 Delay in passing orders by AA.

The AA is directed to pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

If any order is not passed by 22nd Feb, 19, the Appellate Tribunal may pass the order.


05

Financial Pundits LLP Vs.

M/s. VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd.


2019.

(1ST February,2019)

Section 9 & of I&B Code, 2016 Pre-existence of dispute.

As there is a pre-existence of dispute, application for initiation of ‘CIRP’ is not

maintainable. The appeal filed is dismissed.


06

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel (India)

through State Bank of India

Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta &

Ors.

I.A. No. 172 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 03 of

2019.(4th February,2019)

Sections 24(3)© & 31 of I&B Code,

2016

Delay in passing of appropriate order.

Representation of ‘Operational Creditors’.

One of the representative of ‘Operational Creditors’ can be given opportunity to

highlight objection, if any, with regard to ‘ Resolution Plan’

If no order is passed by 12th Feb, 19, this Appellate Tribunal may pass appropriate

orders.


07

Naresh Kumar Dhingra & Ors.

Vs.Indian Overseas Bank &

Anr.




Date of default is wrong and Form –I signed in personal

capacity.

As there is debt due payable by CD and records being complete, the AA rightly

admitted the application.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Kushal%20Ltd%20Vs%20Ramchandra%20D.%20Choudhary%20&%20Ors%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20106-2019_2019-02-06%2019:02:00.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Financial%20Pundits%20LLP%20Vs%20VSR%20Infratech%20Pvt%20Ltd%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20103-2019_2019-02-06%2018:58:23.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/4th%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20CoC%20of%20Essar%20Steel%20(India)%20through%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20Vs.%20Satish%20Kumar%20Gupta%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2003-2019_2019-02-10%2013:58:52.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/4th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Naresh%20Kumar%20Dhingra%20&%20Ors.%20vs%20Indian%20Overseas%20Bank%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)73-2019%5d_2019-02-08%2016:37:53.pdf

18

08Amit Katyal

Vs. Manjula Khullar & Ors

I. A. No.229 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 79 of



Withdrawal of application on settlement of matter.

As the parties have reached settlement before constitution of the Committee of

Creditors, order passed by AA is set aside.


09

Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari

Vs.Vipin Kumar & Ors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 543 - 544,

571 and 598 of 2018.(4th February,2019)


Allegation regarding fraud and misappropriation etc.

The AA cannot direct SFIO enquiry except in terms of Section 213 of the Company Act..

As such, the order passed by AA is set aside.


10Jai Prakash Bansal

Vs. Agarwal Alloys & Anr.




No Document/Demand Notice in support of the claim

As the Demand Notice was duly issued and there being no pre-existence of dispute, the

application was rightly admitted by AA.


11

Tata Steel Limited Vs.

Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd. & Ors




Numerous opportunities given to ‘Resolution Applicant’.

Granting opportunity to all eligible ‘Resolution Applicants’ to revises their

‘financial offers’ is permissible.


12

Smt. K. BharathiVs.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr


of 2019.(5th February,2019)

Section 12 of the I & B, 2016

Extension of time to complete ’CIRP’

As the order has been passed to carry out earlier directions, there is no merit in the

appeal. Hence dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/4th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Amit%20Katyal%20vs%20Manjula%20Khullar%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2079-2019%5d_2019-02-08%2016:34:05.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/Mrs%20Ramanathan%20Bhuvaneshwari%20Vs%20Vipin%20Kumar%20&%20Ors%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20543-544%20-2018_2019-02-06%2018:55:11.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/4th%20feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Jai%20Prakash%20Bansal%20vs%20Agarwal%20Alloys%20&%20Anr%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2039-2019%5d_2019-02-05%2016:03:44.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/4th%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Tata%20Steel%20Limited%20Vs.%20Liberty%20House%20Group%20Pte.%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20198-2018_2019-02-04%2017:48:21.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/5th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Smt.%20K.%20Bharathi%20vs%20Kotak%20Mahindra%20Bank%20%5bCA(AT)(Insovlency)114-2019%5d_2019-02-08%2016:31:36.pdf

19

13Bank of India

Vs.Indu Projects Ltd.


2019.(6th February,2019


Inordinate delay in consideration of insolvency application.

The AA is directed to pass appropriate order on the application.


14Sanjay Kapoor

Vs.TDI Infrastructure Ltd




Insolvency petition rendered infructuous.

The appellant is to approach the AA for restoration of the application. The AA

would revive/restore the application for appropriate orders.


15

Fire Trix Engineering & Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Maxitech Engineering

Pvt.


2018(8th February,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 No pre-existing dispute.

As there is pre-existing dispute between the parties since 2014, the Adjudicating

Authority rightly rejected the application.


16

State Bank of IndiaVs.

Jai Balaji Industries Limited & Ors.



Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 Pendency of winding up petition.

As no specific order of winding up/liquidation has been passed by the Hon’ble

High Court, the insolvency application preferred is maintainable. Further there is debt payable by CD and application is

complete.

Therefore order passed by AA is set aside. The matter is remitted to AA to admit the

application.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/5th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Bank%20of%20India%20vs%20Indu%20Projects%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20125-2019%5d_2019-02-08%2016:30:27.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/6th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Sanjay%20Kapoor%20vs%20TDI%20Infrastructure%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20122-2019%5d_2019-02-08%2016:29:08.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/8th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Fire%20Trix%20Engineering%20&%20Systems%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20Maxitech%20Engineering%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)673-2018%5d_2019-02-13%2010:18:33.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/8th%20Feb%202019%20State%20bak%20of%20India%20vs%20Jai%20Balaji%20Industries%20Limited%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)788-2018%5d_2019-02-12%2017:23:17.pdf

20

17

Rahul SinghwalVs.

M/s. Sarvottam Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr.




1.‘Pre-existing dispute’2. Settlement of laims.’

As the parties have settled the matter prior to constitution of the CoCs, the order passed

by AA is set aside.


18

Sarang BhandVs.

West Coast Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd.




Status of the Creditor(Financial/ Operational)

As the Creditor invested money for the purpose of projects of equity share of third party, it cannot be termed to be a ‘financial creditor.’ As such, insolvency petition filed

was not maintainable. Accordingly, the order passed by AA is set aside.


19

Vikas Aggarwal Suspended Director, Asian Colour Coated

Ispat LimitedVs.

1. State Bank of India2. Asian Colour Coated

Ispat Limited




‘Financial Creditor’ failed to cure the defects.

The ‘Financial Creditor’ has removed the defects and there is existence of a default.

Hence, no interference with the order passed by AA.


20

Mridula AgarwalVs.

Mehndipur Balaji Agriextensions Pvt. Ltd


of 2018.(8th F

ebruary,2019)

Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 Settlement of the issue/matter

In view of the agreements reached between the parties, no further order is required to be

passed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/8th%20FEb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Rahul%20Singhwal%20vs%20Ms.%20Sarvottam%20Rolling%20Mills%20(P)%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2021-2019%5d_2019-02-12%2017:21:36.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/8th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Sarang%20Bhand%20vs%20West%20Coast%20Ventures%20(India)%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20746-2018%5d_2019-02-12%2017:19:50.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/8th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Vikas%20Aggarwal%20vs%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)587-2018%5d_2019-02-12%2017:18:31.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/8th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Manoj%20Kumar%20Agarwal%20vs%20Mehndipur%20Balaji%20Agriextensions%20Pvt.%20Ltd%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20576-2018%5d_2019-02-12%2017:15:21.pdf

21

21

Centrum Capital LimitedVs.

Orient Green Power Company Limited


632 of 2018.(8th February,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Existence of dispute

In both the cases, there was pre-existence of dispute, the AA rightly rejected the

applications.


22

Coal India Ltd.Vs.

Gulf Coil Lubricants India Ltd. & Anr.



Section 9 of I&B Code, 2016 Settlement of matter.

As the parties have settled the matter prior to the constitution of the ‘CoCs,’ the order

passed by the AA is set aside.


23

Mr. S. Venkatasubramaniam

Vs.Ms. Anitha Kumar & Anr




As the parties have settled the matter and Memorandum of Compromise has been

signed prior to the constitution of ‘CoCs’, the order passed by AA is set aside.


24

Harish BaglaVs.

Agarwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. & 4 Ors.




As the parties have settled the matter prior to the constitution of the ‘CoCs’, the order

passed by the AA is set aside


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/8th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Centrum%20Capital%20Limited%20vs%20Orient%20Green%20Power%20Company%20Limited%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20508-2018%5d_2019-02-13%2010:54:39.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/11th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Coal%20India%20Ltd.%20vs%20Gulf%20Coil%20Lubricants%20India%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)807-2018%5d_2019-02-13%2011:20:24.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/11th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr.%20S.%20Venkatasubramaniam%20vs%20Ms.%20Anitha%20Kumar%20&%20anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2059-2019%5d_2019-02-13%2011:18:25.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/11th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Harish%20Bagla%20vs%20Agarwal%20Industries%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%204%20Ors.%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)102-2019%5d_2019-02-13%2010:58:48.pdf

22

25

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd.

Vs.IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr.


2019.

(11th February,2019)


Hearing the Intervenor at the stage of admission.

At the time of admission of insolvency proceedings, no one has right to move the

appeal. Hence, no interference with the order passed by AA.


26ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs.

Liberty Group Pte. Ltd. & Anr.


2019.



Frequent adjournments in the case.

AA is directed to expedite the matter and pass appropriate order.


27

Jogendra Kumar AroraVs.

Dharmender Sharma & anr

I.A. 312 & 336 of 2019 IN Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 94 & 95 of 2019.


Section 9 of I & B Code, 2016.

Settlement of the amount by the parties.

Prayer of the appellant to withdraw the application in view of the settlement

reached is allowed. Accordingly, the order passed by the AA is set aside.


28Gigi George

Vs.Anitha Kumaran & Anr.



??? Settlement of matter.

The appeal has become infructuous as order passed by AA under reference has already

been set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/11th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Srei%20Infrastructure%20Finance%20Ltd.%20vs%20IDBI%20Bank%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)126-2019%5d_2019-02-13%2010:57:37.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/11th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20ICICI%20Bank%20Ltd%20vs%20Liberty%20Group%20Pte%20ltd.%20&%20anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20133-2019%5d_2019-02-13%2010:56:00.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/12th%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Jogendra%20Kumar%20Arora%20Vs.%20Dharmender%20Sharma%20&%20anr%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2094%20&%2095-2019_2019-02-13%2011:23:08.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/12th%20Feb%202019%20%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Gigi%20George%20vs%20Anitha%20Kumaran%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)141-2019%5d_2019-02-13%2011:21:17.pdf

23

29


Vs.GPT Steel Industries Ltd.




Delay in disposal of admission of application.

The AA is directed to expedite disposal of application and pass appropriate order

preferably within two weeks.


30

Shalini Publicity Creative Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Dena Bank




Time requested for OTS.

OA is pending for adjudication before DRT.

Claim time barred by Limitation.

As OTS proposal was rejected by Financial Creditor and there is existence of debt and default, the AA has correctly admitted the

reference.

Records show that the claim is not time-barred by limitation.

The appeal is dismissed.


31

M/s. Grid Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

M/s. Hythro Power Corporation Ltd.


2019.(22nd February,2019)

Section 9 of I & B Code, 2016.

Adjournment of the proceedings sine die.

Appellant to file before AA an additional affidavit together with copies of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Also provide

present status of the cases. On filing of such affidavit, the AA to pass

appropriate orders.


32M/s. Roma Enterprises

Vs.Mr. Martin S.K. Golla, R.P


2018.

(22nd February,2019)

Section 18 of I&B,Code,2016 Rejection of Claim.

As the claim is a disputed one, it cannot be decided by RP/AA. The issue can be raised

at an appropriate stage I.e. after moratorium is over.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/15th%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Asset%20Reconstruction%20Company%20(India)%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20GPT%20Steel%20Industries%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20151-2019_2019-03-26%2015:59:56.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/18th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Shalini%20Publicity%20Creative%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20Dena%20Bank%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvecny)%20153-2019%5d_2019-02-20%2011:23:42.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/22nd%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Grid%20Infra%20Tech%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Hythro%20Power%20Corporation%20ltd.%20Company%20Appeal%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2033-2019_2019-02-26%2015:55:52.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/22nd%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Roma%20Enterpriss%20Vs.%20Martin%20S.%20K.%20Golla,%20R.P.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20232-2018_2019-02-26%2015:52:11.pdf

24

33

Ajay Agarwal & Anr. Vs.

Ashok Magnetic Ltd. & Ors

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.792 & 793

of 2018.(22nd February,2019)

Section 29 A of the I & B Code,2016

Ineligibility of directors to submit ‘Resolution Plan’

As both the ‘Resolution Plans’ were rejected by

‘CoCs’, the issue of ineligibility of directors is not being decided.

Further, the liquidator is directed to act in accordance with law.


34

Rajesh Balasubramanian Vs.

M/s. Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr


of 2019.(25th February,2019)

Section 29A(g) &31 of I&B,Code,2016

The ‘CIRP’ had not proceeded in accordance with law.

Ineligibility of Resolution Applicant.

The CIRP proceeded as per the Code. One of the “Resolution Applicants’ is ineligible u/s 29A (g). Hence, no interference is called for.

The ‘Liquidator’ is directed to proceed as per law


35

Sarla Tantia Vs.

Ramaanil Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.



Section 9 of I & B Code, 2016 pre-existing dispute

The order passed by AA suffers from serious legal infirmities, it is set aside.

Further, since the debt and default is established, the AA will admit the

application.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/22nd%20Jan%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ajay%20Agarwal%20&%20Anr.%20Vs.%20Ashok%20Magnetic%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20792%20&%20793-2018_2019-02-26%2015:50:24.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/25th%20Feb%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Rajesh%20Balalsubramanian%20vs%20Ms.%20Everon%20Castings%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20182-2019%5d_2019-02-28%2013:42:51.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/25th%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20mater%20of%20Sarla%20Tantia%20vs%20Ramaanil%20Hotels%20&%20Resorts%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insovlecny)%20513-2018%5d_2019-02-28%2013:41:04.pdf

25

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

36

Mr. Navneet Kumar Gupta, Resolution

Professional of Monnet Power Company Ltd.

Vs.Bharat Heavy Electricals

Limited.



Section 18 of I&B Code,2016 Rejection of claim by ‘RP’

As ‘Resolution Professional’ have no adjudicatory powers to reject the claim.

He is directed to act in accordance with the directions of AA.


37Ms. Lima Rose Vs.

M/s. Air Carnival Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 191-193 of


Section 33(1) of I&B Code,2016

The CIRP’ not proceeded as per law.

As ’Resolution Plan’ was not submitted within 270 days, no interference in the order

of AA.2. ‘Liquidator’ to proceed in accordance with

the law.


38

Krishna Kumar MintriVs.

Kamesh Kumar Singhania & Anr.



Section 7 and 12A of I&B Code, 2016 Withdrawal of application.

The ‘Financial Creditor’ is allowed to withdraw the application as the parties

have settled the claim.

The order passed by the AA is set aside.


39Sonal Jayesh Shah

Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singhania & Anr



Section 9 of I & B Code, 2016 Settlement of claim.

As the parties have settled the claim prior to the constitution of ‘CoCs’, the order passed

by the AA is set aside.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/26th%20February%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Monnet%20Power%20Company%20Limited%20vs%20Bharat%20Heavy%20Electricals%20Limited%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20743-2018%5d_2019-02-28%2013:39:46.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Lima%20Rose%20Vs%20Air%20Carnival%20Pvt%20Ltd%20and%20Ors%20CA%20(AT)%20No.191,192%20-2019_2019-03-08%2010:06:28.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/27th%20feb%202019%20In%20thematter%20of%20Krishna%20Kumar%20Mintri%20vs%20Kamlesh%20Kumar%20Singhania%20&%20anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20456-2018%5d_2019-03-06%2017:05:40.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/27th%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sonal%20Jayesh%20Shah%20vs%20Kamlesh%20Kumar%20Singhania%20&%20anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)110-2019%5d_2019-03-06%2017:04:13.pdf

26

40Y. Shivram Prasad

Vs.S. Dhanapal & Ors.


286 of 2018(27th February,2019)


Opportunity not given to settle the matter.

If the members or the ‘Corporate Debtor’/ ‘Creditors’ approach for compromise/or with a proposal of payment to the

creditor(s), the Liquidator is to move an application u/s 230 of the Companies Act,

2013 before the AA.


41Paramjit Gandhi Vs.

Amit Kumar Malik & Anr


2018. (28th February,2019)


There is debt which was payable but not paid. Hence, the insolvency reference

was maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.


42

Anand Rai Vs.

Walsons Services Pvt. Ltd. & An

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 55 of


Section 9 of I & B Code, 2016. Settlement of claim.

Since parties have reached settlement prior to the constitution of the ‘CoCs’

the ‘Operational Creditor’ is allowed to withdraw the application.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/27th%20Feb%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Y.%20Shivam%20Prasad%20&%20Ors.%20Vs.%20S.%20Dhanapal%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20224%20&%20286-2018_2019-03-15%2010:22:09.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/28th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Paramjit%20Gandhi%20vs%20Amit%20Kumar%20Malik%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20512-2018%5d_2019-03-06%2017:18:05.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/28th%20Feb%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Anand%20Rai%20vs%20Walsons%20Services%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2055-2019%5d_2019-03-06%2017:08:35.pdf

27

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

01

Agarwal Coal Corporation Ltd.

Vs.Shriram Cement Ltd.


2018.(3rd January,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Claim time barred by limitation.

As the claim is not time barred by limitation, order passed by AA is set aside. The matter is remitted to NCLT to admit the application as

per law.


02

Sanjay Kumar RuiaVs.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Anr


2018.(3rd January,2019)

Section 9, 55 of I&B Code,2016 & regulation 34 of IBBI (Insolvency Process for CD)

Regulations,2016

1. Conversion of ‘CIRP’ to a ‘Fast Track CIRP.’

2. Replacement of ‘Resolution Professional’.

3. To decide the Resolution Cost payable to ‘Resolution

Professional’.

1. AA has no jurisdiction to convert ‘CIRP’ as ‘Fast Track CIRP’.

2 On completion of 270 days, the CoCs have no jurisdiction to replace a ‘RP’.

3. AA had no jurisdiction to decide the Resolution Cost of the ‘RP’.

The order passed by AA is set aside.


NCLAT CASES FOR THE MONTH OF JANuARy,2019

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/3rd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Agarwal%20Coal%20Corporation%20Ltd.%20vs%20Shriram%20Cement%20Ltd.%20%5bCa(AT)(Insolvency)%20594-2018%5d_2019-01-07%2017:26:56.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/3rd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Sanjay%20Kumar%20Ruia%20vs%20Catholic%20Syrian%20Bank%20Ltd%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)560-2018%5d_2019-02-13%2010:43:26.pdf

28

03

M/s. Yash Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.M/s. Base Corporation

Limited


2019.(3rd January,2019)

Sections 9, of I&B Code,2016 Pre –existence of dispute.

There is an existence of dispute. Hence, appeal is dismissed.


04


Ltd.Vs.

Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.


2019.

(3rd January,2019)

Section 31 of I&B Act,2016 Non-disposal of matter.

In case, no final order is passed by AA in the next hearing, the Appellant is to bring the fact

before this Appellate Authority.


05

Dorairaj Thillairaj & Anr.Vs.

Ashok Magnetic Ltd. & Ors.


2018.

(4th January,2019)

Section 29 A of I&B Act,2016

Nominee Director to be a ‘Resolution Applicant’.

Without considering whether Appellant is ineligible or otherwise, the appeal filed is

dismissed as his ‘plan’ is found ‘non-viable and feasible’ by CoCs.


06

The Dhar Textile Mills Ltd.Vs.

Asset Reconstruction Company

(India) Ltd.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 11 of 2019.

(7th January,2019)

Section 7 of I&B Code,2016

Delay in admission /rejection of insolvency petition.

The AA is directed to pass appropriate order on merit on next date without

adjourning the matter.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/3rd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Yash%20Technologies%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20Base%20Corporation%20Limited%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2001%20-2019%5d_2019-01-08%2009:39:53.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Committee%20of%20Creditors%20of%20Essar%20Steel%20(India)%20Ltd.%20through%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20Vs%20Satish%20Kumar%20Gupta%20&%20Ors.%20Company%20Appeal%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2003%20-2019_2019-01-04%2022:10:56.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/4th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Dorairaj%20Thillairaj%20&%20Anr.%20vs%20Ashok%20Magnetic%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20791-2018%5d_2019-01-08%2009:41:36.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/7th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20the%20DHar%20Textile%20Mills%20ltd.%20vs%20Asset%20Reconstruction%20Company%20(India)%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2011-2019%5d_2019-01-08%2009:43:56.pdf

29

07

Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal

Vs.M/s. Piramal

Enterprises Ltd


of 2018.

(8th January,2019)


Initiation of CIRP against a ‘Corporate Guarantors’:

(i)against two ‘Corporate Guarantors’ simultaneously by the

same set of claim(ii) if the Principal Borrower is

not a CD.

Without initiating ‘CIRP’ against the ‘Principal Borrower’, the ‘Financial Creditor’ can trigger

‘CIRP’ against the ‘Corporate Guarantors’.

2. ‘Financial Creditor’ cannot trigger ‘ÇIRP’ against the two ‘Corporate Debtors’’ for the

same claim amount.

Therefore, Appeal No. 346 of 2018 is dismissed and Appeal No. 347 of 2018 is allowed


08

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.,Vs.

Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 92, 93, &

148 of 2017.(8th January,2019)


Role of Consortium Banks at the time of admission of Insolvency

petition.

Maintainability of ‘CIRP’ against ‘Corporate Guarantor’.

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd (92/2017):

The appeal of CD through (suspended) Board of Directors is not maintainable.

Bank of India(148/2017) :

At the stage of admission of insolvency petition, the intervener has no role to play. The

appeal is rejected.

Raj Bahadur Shree Ram and Company Pvt. Ltd (93/2017):

Without initiating ‘CIRP’ against the ‘Principal Borrower’, the ‘Financial

Creditor’ can trigger ‘CIRP’ against the ‘Corporate Guarantors’.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/8th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Dr.%20Vishnu%20Kumar%20Agarwal%20vsPiramal%20Enterprise%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20346-2018%5d_2019-01-10%2018:31:41.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/8th%20Jan%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ferro%20Alloys%20Corporation%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20Vs.%20Rural%20Electrication%20Corporation%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2092,93%20&%20148-2017_2019-01-10%2012:10:07.pdf

30

09

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.Vs.

Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd. & Ors


2019.(8th January,2019)

Section 61(3) of I&B Code,2016 Delayed submission of claim.

After approval of the Resolution Plan, it is not open to the Appellant to move an appeal.



10

Shashi Kanth JainVS.

M/s. Alloys & Metals (India


2018.

(8th January,2019)

Section 9, of I&B Code,2016

Opportunity not provided to file reply.

There exist ‘debt’ & ‘default’ and also records are complete. Hence, no ground to interfere

with the order of AA.


11

Susant Pujari,VS.

M/s. Swastika Steel and Allied

Products Pvt. Ltd.


2018.(8th January,2019)

- Non-appearance of parties.

As nobody appeared on behalf of the parties, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.


12

Karan Gambhir, Vs.

Sajeve Bhushan Deora,Liquidator for Forgings

Pvt. Ltd.


2018.

(9th January,2019)

Section 33(2), of I&B Code,2016

Liquidation Orderpassed after 80 days.

The AA passed order for liquidation only on completion of 180 days.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/8th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Kotak%20Mahindra%20Prime%20Ltd.%20vs%20Rave%20Scans%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2016-2019%5d_2019-01-11%2009:54:40.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/8th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Shashi%20Kanth%20Jain%20vs%20Alloys%20Metals%20(India)%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20373-2018%5d_2019-01-11%2009:45:47.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/8th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Susant%20Pujari%20vs%20Swastika%20Steel%20and%20Allied%20Products%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)400-2018%5d_2019-01-11%2009:43:13.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/9th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Karan%20Gambhir%20vs%20Sajeve%20Bhushan%20Deora%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)779-2018%5d_2019-01-11%2009:39:47.pdf

31

13

DEB Kumar Majumder & Ors.

Vs.State Bank of India


2019.(14th January,2019)

Sections 7 & 11 of I&B Code,2016

Pendency of winding up Proceedings

AA is to decide admission of the insolvency application taking into consideration whether

winding up proceedings has already been initiated against the ‘corporate debtor’ or not.


14

Paresh C. ShahVs.

Udupi Vasudev Ganesh Nayak & Ors


2018.(14th January,2019)

Sections 29 of I&B Code,2016

Submission of ‘Resolution Plan’ by a wilful defaulter.

As the ‘Resolution Applicant’ was covered by the provision of Section 29A,he was not eligible

to submit the Plan. Hence, appeal is dismissed.


15

IDBI Bank Ltd.Vs.

Odisha Slurry PipelineInfrastructure Ltd.


2019.(15th January,2019)


Delay in-disposal of insolvency application.

As the matter would be taken up shortly by AA, it is expected that the NCLT, will pass

appropriate order.


16

D Srinivasulu and Anr.Vs.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.


201714th January,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Pre-existence of dispute

There is pre-existence of dispute. Hence the order passed by AA is set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/14th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20DEB%20kumar%20Majumder%20&%20Ors.%20Vs%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2044-2019%5d_2019-01-18%2012:02:54.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/14th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Paresh%20C.%20Shah%20vs%20Udupi%20Vasudev%20Ganesh%20Nayak%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20539%20-2018%5d_2019-01-18%2012:03:56.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/15th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20IDBI%20Bank%20Ltd.%20vs%20Odisha%20Slurry%20Pipeline%20Infrastructure%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2051-2019%5d_2019-01-18%2011:59:28.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/14th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20D%20Srinivasulu%20&%20Anr.%20vs%20Dr.%20Reddys%20Laboratories%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20190-2017%5d_2019-01-18%2012:01:39.pdf

32

17Ashok B. Jiwrajka,

Vs.Axis Bank Ltd


2018.

(16th January,2019)


Discontinuance of resolution process against

Subsidiary Company

‘CIRP’ initiated against Subsidiary Company will continue.

.Click here for full judgement.

18

Export Import Bank of India

Vs.

CHL Limited


2018.(16th January,2019)


Liability of a surety not co-extensive with the ‘Principal

Borrower’.

Invocation of ‘Corporate Guarantees’ is subject to occurrence of default. Since there is no default by the ‘Principal Borrower’, the

Guarantee cannot be invoked.

The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.


19

Sh. Ved PrakashVs.

M/s. Navkar Traders & Anr


2019.(17th January,2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Settlement of dues.

There was no debt payable and no default exists as on date of admission of Insolvency

petition. Therefore, order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Mar/16th%20Jan%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ashok%20B.%20Jiwrajka,%20Director%20of%20Alok%20Infrastructure%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Axis%20Bank%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20683-2018_2019-03-07%2012:10:16.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/16th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Export%20Import%20Bank%20of%20India%20vs%20CHL%20Limited%20%5bCA(AT)%20(Insolvency)%2051-2018%5d_2019-01-18%2011:56:01.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/17th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Sh.%20Ved%20Prakash%20vs%20Navkar%20Traders%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2045-2019%5d_2019-01-21%2017:03:51.pdf

33

20

Ajay AgarwalVs.

Shantanu T. Ray, RP ofAML Steel and Power

Ltd. & Ors


2019.(18th January,2019)


Exclusion of time period from the ‘CIRP’ period.

As there were substantial grounds warranting exclusion of 90 days period from ‘CIRP’ period,

the order passed by AA does not suffer from any legal infirmity.


21

Alloysmin IndustriesVs.

Raman Casting Private Limited


2018.(21st January,2019)

Sections 8 & 9 of I&B Code,2016

Non-service of Demand Notice on the Registered Office.

Demand Notice served on Corporate Office, is as valid service of notice. Further, as no dispute exist about the claim and its default, the order

passed by AA is set aside. The case is remitted to AA for admission of

application.


22

Pushpa Shah & Anr.Vs.

IL&FS Financial Services Limited & Anr


of 2018.

(21st January,2019)

Sections 5(8) & 7 of I&B Code,2016

1. IL&FS does not qualify as ‘Financial Creditor.’

2. Application filed was barred by limitation.

3. Claim was barred by limitation.

1. As the amount disbursed comes within the meaning of ‘financial debt’ the IL&FS is a

‘Financial Creditor’..

2. As the application was filed well within the period of three years, it is not time barred by

limitation.

3. There is a continuous cause of action. Hence ,claim filed is not barred by limitation

Appeals stand dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/18th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Ajay%20Agarwal%20vs%20AML%20Steel%20&%20power%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2061-2019%5d_2019-01-21%2017:05:45.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/21st%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Alloysmin%20Industries%20vs%20Raman%20Casting%20Private%20Limited%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20684-2018%5d_2019-01-21%2017:10:06.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/21st%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Pushpa%20Shah%20&%20Anr.%20vs%20IL&FS%20Financial%20Services%20limited%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvecny)%20521-2018%5d_2019-01-21%2017:08:31.pdf

34

23

Mr. Anmol TekriwalVs.

M/s. M.N. Auxichem & Anr


2018.( 22nd January,2019)

Sections 8 & 9 of I&B Code,2016 Non-service of Notice.

As notice was not served on the ‘Corporate Debtor,’ the order passed by NCLT, is in violation

of natural justice. So is set aside.


24

Anil Kumar TulsianiVs.

Rakesh Kumar Gupta & An


2019.( 22nd January,2019)

Section 7 of I&B Code,2016 Existence of no default

As the parties have already settled the matter, order of the AA is set aside.


25

Kumar Dutta, Vs.

Simplex Infrastructure Ltd.


2019.( 22nd January,2019)

Sections 9 & 61(2) of I&B Code,2016

Condonation of delay.

As the appeal not filed within 45 days, it is dismissed being barred by limitation.


26

Ranvir Ranjit

Vs.Vijay R. Vakharia & Ors

I.A. No. 1809 of 2018IN


2018.( 22nd January,2019)

Section 7 & 14 of I&B Code,2016

Modification of AA order in respect of rental receivables aaaaaaa

As no ground could be made out to modify the order passed by AA, the prayer made is

rejected.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/22nd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr.%20Anmol%20Tekriwal%20Vs%20M.N.%20Auxichem%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20570-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2009:50:54.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/22nd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Anil%20Kumar%20Tulsiani%20vs%20Rakesh%20Kumar%20Gupta%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2035-2019%5d_2019-02-05%2009:46:43.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/22nd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Kumar%20Dutta,%20Properietor%20K.%20D.%20Trading%20vs%20Simplex%20Infrastructure%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)69-2019%5d_2019-02-05%2009:49:07.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/22nd%20Jan%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ranvir%20Ranjit%20Vs.%20Vijay%20R.%20Vakharia%20&%20Ors.%20I.A.%20No.%201809-2018%20In%20CA%20(AT)%20(insolvency)%20No.%20646-2018_2019-01-24%2013:50:58.pdf

35

27

Sanjeev Azad & Anr. Vs.

Punjab National Bank & Anr


2019.( 23rd January,2019)

Section 7 of I&B Code,2016 Form-1 submitted is incomplete.

There exist debt and default. Further, record submitted is complete. There is

no merit in the appeal.


28

Assam Company India LtdVs.

Numazar Dorab Mehta & Ors.


2019. (23rd January, 2019).


Appeal by erstwhile Director on passing of order by AA

On acceptance of Resolution Plan by AA, Corporate Debtor is under the control of

Successful Resolution Applicant. Hence, appeal by erstwhile Director of the

Company is not maintainable.


29

Rokadoba Maharaj Ginning & Pressing Pvt.

Ltd. Vs.

Sel Manufacturing Company Ltd.


2019.(23rd January, 2019).


Delay in passing appropriate order by AA

The AA will pass appropriate reasoned order on the application on the next date..


30


Ltd. Through State Bank of India

Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta &

Ors.

I.A. No. 172 of 2019 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 03 of

2019.

(23rd January, 2019).

Section 31 of I&B Code,2016 Delay in disposal of IA.

The AA is directed to pass appropriate order by the next date failing which this Appellate

Tribunal may call for the records and pass appropriate order.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/23rd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Sanjeev%20Azad%20&%20anr.%20vs%20Punjab%20National%20Bank%20&%20anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2065-2019%5d_2019-01-24%2017:11:15.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/23rd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Assam%20Company%20India%20Ltd.%20vs%20Numazar%20Dorab%20Mehta%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2082-2019%5d_2019-01-24%2017:10:25.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/23rd%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Rokadoba%20Maharaj%20Ginning%20&%20Pressing%20Pvt%20Ltd.%20vs%20Sel%20Manufacturing%20Company%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2076-2019%5d_2019-01-24%2017:07:28.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/23rd%20Jan%202019%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20CoC%20of%20Creditors%20of%20Essar%20Steel%20(India)%20Ltd.%20Through%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20Vs.%20Satish%20Kumar%20Gupta%20&%20Ors.%20I.A.%20No.%20172-2018%20In%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%2003-2019_2019-01-24%2013:30:57.pdf

36

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

31Kavita Anil Taneja

Vs. ISMT Limit

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 545-546

of 2018.(24th January, 2019).


Respondent is not an ‘Operational Creditor’.

The respondent is not an ‘operational creditor’, and, therefore, the insolvency application was

not maintainable. Accordingly, the order passed by the

AA is set aside.


32

Mr. Dingo KuVs.

1. M/s. Suntech Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

2. Mr. Vijender Sharma, Interim

3. M/s. CINDA Engineering &

Construction Pvt. Ltd.


2018.(24th January, 2019

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Non-issuance of notice by the AA

The AA failed to issue notice to the Corporate Debtor prior to admission of the case. There is

also a pre-existing dispute. As such, admission of insolvency application

was not maintainable.


33

KEC International LtdVs.

Logic Eastern India Pvt. Ltd.


2018.(25th January, 2019)

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Dispute regarding amount claimed

As appellant claim is being considered by Resolution Professional, no

interference is called for.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/24th%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Kavita%20Anil%20Taneja%20vs%20ISMT%20Limited%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)545-546-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2009:36:10.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/24th%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr.%20Dingo%20Ku%20vs%20suntech%20Infrea%20Solutions%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20738-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2009:38:33.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/25th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20KEC%20International%20Ltd.%20vs%20Logic%20Eastern%20India%20Pvt.%20Ltd%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20701-2018%5d_2019-02-04%2017:57:58.pdf

37

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

34

Yogesh Bosmiya & Ors. Vs.

India Asses Growth Fund Through Essel Finance Advisors &

Managers LLP & Anr


2019.(25th January, 2019)


Request for time to settle the claim.

Non-acceptance of request of time for settlement of claim cannot be ground to set

aside the order passed by the AA.


35

KKR Jupiter Investors Pte. Ltd.

Vs.IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr


2018.(28th January, 2019)


Delay in admission of insolvency petition

The AA is directed to pass appropriate order on the application not beyond three weeks.

Further, intervener is not required to be heard at the stage.


36

Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd.

Vs.JEKPL Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.


2018.

(28th January, 2019)


Non-consideration of ‘Resolution Plan’

As the order passed by AA already stand quashed, no specific direction is required.


37State Bank of India Vs.

Shri Gopalsamy Ganesh Babu


2018

(28th January, 2019)


Resolution Plan is pending for approval

The AA is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three weeks.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/25th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Yogesh%20Bosmiya%20&%20Ors.%20vs%20India%20Asses%20Growth%20Fund%20Through%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2078-2019%5d_2019-02-04%2017:56:52.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/28th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20KKR%20Jupiter%20Investors%20Pte.%20Ltd.vs%20IDBI%20Bank%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20786-2018%5d_2019-02-04%2017:54:44.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/28th%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Hindustan%20Oil%20Exploration%20Co.%20Ltd.%20vs%20JEKPL%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2033-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2011:12:41.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/28th%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20vs%20Shri%20Gopalsamy%20Ganesh%20Babu%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20427-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2011:09:33.pdf

38

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

38

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development

Corporation Ltd. Vs.

Sanjay Gupta & Anr.


2018.(28th January, 2019)

Section 33 & 36 of I&B Code,2016 Cancellation of Lease Deed

The Liquidator is to pass appropriate order with regard to land in question and communicate

the decision to Appellant.


39

Aluminium UdyogVs.

Parnika Commercial & Estates Pvt. Ltd


2019.(29th January, 2019

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Pre-existing dispute

As there is pre-existing of dispute, initiation of CIRP is rightly refused by the AA.


40

B. R. Traders & Ors.Vs.

Oceanic Edibles International Ltd. & Ors.


2019.(29th January, 2019


Resolution Professional did not request for submission of

Resolution Plan

As no Resolution Plan was submitted within in 270 days, the AA rightly passed the order for

liquidation.


41

Shri Kishore Shankar Signapurkar

Vs.Prakash Dattatraya

Naringrekar, RP

Contempt Case (AT) No. 04 of 2019 in


2018(29th January, 2019)

- Contempt case against Resolution Professional.

As no case is made out to initiate case for contempt against the Resolution Professional

(RP), the case is dismissed.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/28th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Chhattisgarh%20State%20Industrial%20Development%20Corporation%20Ltd.%20vs%20Sanjay%20Gupta%20&%20Anr.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20447-2018%5d_2019-02-04%2017:55:55.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/29th%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Aluminium%20Udyog%20vs%20Parnika%20Commercial%20&%20Estate%20Pvt.%20Ltd%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2093-2019%5d_2019-02-05%2010:53:22.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/29th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20B.R.%20Traders%20&%20Ors.%20vs%20Oceanic%20Edibles%20International%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2092-2019%5d_2019-02-05%2010:52:24.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/29th%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Shri%20Kishore%20Shankar%20Signapurkarvs%20Prakash%20Dattatraya%20Naringrekar,%20RP%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20739-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2010:55:41.pdf

39

42

Kumar VihaanVs.

Overseas Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. & An


2018.(29th January, 2019)


1. Pre -existence of dispute.

2. Non-issue of Notice by AA.

3. Settlement of claim.

The order passed by AA is set aside, as it is in violation of principle of Natural Justice.

However, as the parties have settled their claims, the case is not remitted back to AA for

fresh hearing.


43S.C. Sekaran

Vs.Amit Gupta & Ors.


496 of 2018.(29th January, 2019)


To keep the companies as ‘going concern’.

In view of the provision of Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the ‘Liquidator’ is directed to proceed in accordance with law.


44Gail (India) Ltd.

Vs.M/s. Neycer India Ltd


2018.(29th January, 2019)

Section33(1) of I&B Code,2016 Legality of the Notification.

As the Notification was illegal, the order passed by the AA is set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/29th%20jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Kumar%20Vihaan%20vs%20Overseas%20Packaging%20Industries%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20800-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2011:08:14.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/29th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20S.C%20Sekaran%20vs%20Amit%20Gupta%20&Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20495&496-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2010:59:18.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/29th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Gail%20(India)Ltd.%20vs%20Ms%20Neycer%20India%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20294-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2011:02:33.pdf

40

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

45

Mr. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju

Vs.Gandhar Oil Refinery

(India) Ltd.

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 552 & 553

of 2018

(30th January,2019)


1. Pre-existing dispute.2. Settlement of claims

by the parties.

As there was a ‘pre-existing dispute’, the orders passed by AA are set aside.

2. Further, as the parties have settled the matter, they are bound by the

“terms of Settlement”


46

M/s Dynepro Private Limited

Vs.Mr. V. Nagarajan

Resolution ProfessionalIn respect of M/s Cethar

Limited


of 2018.(30th January,2019)

Sections 18 & 60(5) of

I & B Code, 2016.

Release of material during the Resolution Process.

As the AA has no jurisdiction to decide the claim/counter claim on the material, it has

rightly passed the orders.


47

Pushti ImpexVs.

Shree Satyanarayan Industrial Suppliers

Private Limited


2018.(30th January,2019)

1 Sections 419(4) and

9 of I&B Code, 2016

No pre-existence of dispute.

Due to Non-issuance of Demand Notice, insolvency application is not maintainable.

As such, transfer petition stood abated.


48

Shailesh SanganiVs.

1. Joel Cardoso2. Priority Marketing

Private Limited


2018.(30th January,2019)


Amount claimedis not a ‘Financial Debt’

As the amount of debt falls within the purviewof ‘financial debt’, no merit in this appeal..


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/30th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr.%20Raghu%20Rama%20Krishna%20Raju%20vs%20Gandhar%20Oil%20refinery%20(India)%20Ltd.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20552-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2010:10:27.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/30th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Ms%20Dynepro%20Private%20Limited%20vs%20Mr.%20V.%20Nagarajan%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20229-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2009:56:05.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/30th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Pushti%20impex%20vs%20Shree%20Satyanarayan%20Industrial%20Suppliers%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20435-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2010:05:55.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/30th%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Shailesh%20Sangani%20vs%20Joel%20Cardoso%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20616-2018%5d_2019-02-05%2009:57:51.pdf

41

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

49

Committee of Creditors of

M/s. Xalta Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Ms. Prerna Singh


2019.(31stJanuary,2019)


Payment of current rent of the rented premises.

Moratorium is not applicable in case of payment of current rent against the rented

premises of CD. Hence, the order is rightly passed for payment of rent by AA.


50Arjun Puri

Vs.Kunal Prasad & Ors.


2019.

(31stJanuary,2019)


1.No ‘default’ in payment of‘Debt’.

2. The parties have already settled the claim

As the (i) parties have settled the matter before constitution of the ‘CoCs, & (ii)

respondent wants to withdraw the application, the order passed by AA is set aside.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/31st%20Jan%202019%20Committee%20of%20Creditors%20of%20Xalta%20Food%20and%20Beverages%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20Prerna%20Singh%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%20104-2019%5d_2019-02-05%2011:16:41.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Feb/31st%20Jan%202019%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Arjun%20Puri%20vs%20Kunal%20Prasad%20&%20Ors.%20%5bCA(AT)(Insolvency)%2052-2019%5d_2019-02-05%2009:54:04.pdf

42

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

01

M/s. Bee Kay Precisum (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.R.G. Steel


2018.

( 3rd December,2018)

- Substitution of Appellant

The appeal is dismissed due to non-filing of petition for substitution of appellant.


02

Prowess International Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Jai Balaji Industries Ltd


2018.( 3rd December,2018)


aaaaaaaa Settlement reached between the parties

In view of the settlement reached between the parties, withdrawal of appeal is permitted.


03

Shyam Sunder BhatterVs.

Punjab National Bank & Anr


of 2018.( 3rd December,2018)

Section 7 of I&B Code,2016 Not impleading the guarantors as

a party respondent to the CIRP.

The guarantor is not a necessary party at the time of admission of application. Hence,

appeal is dismissed.


NCLAT CASES FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER,2018

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/3rd%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Bee%20Kay%20Precisum%20(India)%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20R.G.%20Steel%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20689-2018_2018-12-07%2018:38:22.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/3rd%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Prowess%20International%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20Jai%20Balaji%20Industries%20Ltd.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20574-2018_2018-12-07%2018:42:38.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/3rd%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Shayam%20Sunder%20Bhatter%20&%20Ors.%20Vs.%20Punjab%20National%20Bank%20&%20Anr.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20728%20&%20729-2018_2018-12-21%2014:23:59.pdf

43

04

Export-Import Bank of India & Anr.

Vs. Astonfield Solar

(Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.


2018.

( 4th December,2018)


Voting right of the shareholder for initiation of ‘ÇIRP’.

Shareholder’s right to approve /disapprove the decision to proceed with ‘CIRP’ is not stand

curtailed by Deed of Pledge of Securities.


05


Vs.Neesa Leisure Ltd


2018.


Section 7 of I&B Code,2016 Disposal of application.

The AA is directed to decide the question of admissibility of application and dispose of the

same within two weeks.


06

Pallavada Technical Textiles Park Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Unique Roof Pvt. Ltd


2018.


Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Settlement of the matter.

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on settlement of the Issue.


07Manish Agarwal, IRP

Vs.G.S. Express Pvt. Ltd


2018.


- Fixation of fee/ amount payable to the IRP.

The AA order to refund the amount is set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/4th%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Export-%20Import%20Bank%20of%20India%20&%20Anr.%20Vs%20Astonfield%20Solar%20(Gujarat)%20Pvt.%20Ltd%20&%20Anr.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20754-2018_2018-12-21%2014:26:45.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/5th%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Asset%20Reconstruction%20Company%20(India)%20Ltd.%20Vs%20Neesa%20Leisure%20Ltd.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20615-2018_2018-12-21%2014:34:41.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/5th%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Pallavada%20Technical%20Textiles%20Park%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Unique%20Roof%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20644-2018_2018-12-21%2014:36:54.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/6th%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Manish%20Agarwal%20Vs.%20G.S.%20Express%20Pvt.%20Ltd%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20658-2018_2018-12-21%2014:46:01.pdf

44

08

Rajesh Dinanath Dabhade

Vs.Jumbo Tanks &

Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr


2018.


- Settlement of the matter

On settlement of the matter, the prayer of the appellant to withdraw the appeal is allowed.


09

Consolidated Engineering

Company & Anr.Vs.

Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd.


2018.


Sections 24(3) of I&B Code,2016

Representation of ‘Operational Creditors’.

For representation in the CoCs, the ‘Operational Creditors’ should have 10% of

the total debt as collated and verified by the Resolution Professional.


10

Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Gurpreet Singh


2018.


Sections 7 & 30(2) of I&B Code, 2016.

Regulation 33 of the IBBI

(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

Regulations,2016

Payment of fee/expenses to Interim Resolution Professional.

IRP is to be paid a sum of Rs.1.75 lakhs. Accordingly, order passed by AA stands

modified.


11ICICI Bank Ltd.

Vs.Mr. V. Nagarajan


of 2018.


Section 7, 33(1)(a) & 34(1)

Removal of Resolution Professional (RP).

Once the order of liquidation is passed by AA, the CoCs ceased to exist and become functus

officio. Hence, appeal is dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/6th%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Rajesh%20Dinanath%20Dabhade%20Vs%20Jumbo%20Tanks%20&%20Equipments%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20758-2018_2018-12-21%2014:47:47.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/12th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Consolidated%20Engineering%20Co.%20&%20Anr.%20Vs.%20Golden%20Jubilee%20Hotels%20Pvt.%20Ltd._2018-12-16%2013:30:59.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/13th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Bhasin%20Infotech%20and%20Infrastructure%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Gurpreet%20Singh%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20491-2018_2018-12-14%2017:01:09.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/13th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20ICICI%20Bank%20Vs.%20Mr.%20Venakataramanarao%20Nagarajan,%20RP%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20772%20&%20774-2018_2018-12-16%2013:19:24.pdf

45

12

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Vs.Synergies Dooray

Automotive Ltd. & Ors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 169,170,171,172 & 173 of

2017.


Section 10, 31(1) & 60(5) of I&B

Code,2016

Approved ‘Resolution Plan’ suffers from numerous material

irregularities.

As the approved Resolution Plan is not violative of any provision of Code, the appeals

filed are dismissed.


13Kamesh Badhana

Vs.Govind Ram & Ors


2018.

( 14th December,2018

- Review and Recall of order.

The AA rightly rejected the application for review or recall as the same was not

maintainable. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.


14

Mr. Rajendra K. BhutaResolution Professional

Vs.Maharashtra Housing

and Area Development Authority(MHADA


2018.


Section 7 & 14(1)(d) of

I&B Code,2016Recovery of property by MHADA.

1. The property belongs to MHADA and cannot be treated as the asset of the ‘Corporate

Debtor.

2. On a lapse of a period of 270 days, the period of moratorium has come to an end.

No merit in the appeal and is dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/14th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Edelweiss%20Asset%20Reconstruction%20Company%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Synergies%20Dooray%20Automotive%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors._2018-12-16%2013:08:49.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/14th%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Kamesh%20Badhana%20Vs.%20Govind%20Ra%20&%20ors.%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20No.%20780-2018_2018-12-21%2014:55:28.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/14th%20Dec%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mr%20Rajendra%20K.%20Bhuta,%20Resoluion%20Professional%20(for%20Guruashish%20Construction%20Private%20Limited)%20v%20MHADA%20CA(AT)(Insolvency)%20119-2018_2018-12-18%2010:26:08.pdf

46

15

SKS Power Generation Chattisgarh Limited

Vs.Mr. V Nagarajan,

Resolution Professional in respect of M/s.

CetharLimited & Ors


2018.


Sections 43, & 45 of I&B Code,2016

Preferential and undervalued transactions

As the interim order was passed by the AA without deciding the question of

maintainability of application u/s 43 &45 of the Code, it is set aside.

Further, the matter is remitted to AA to decide the application on merit.


16

Deccan Value Investors L.P. & Anr.

Vs.Mr. Dinkar

Venkatasubramanian & Ors


2018.


Section 31 of I&B Code,2016 Access to the documents.

In case, the AA decides that the documents called for are relevant for disposal of

application, the Appellant be allowed to have access to such documents before taking final

decision on ‘Resolution Plan’.


17

Lalit Mishra & Ors.Vs.

Sharon Bio Medicine Ltd. & Ors.


2018.



1. No amount provided under the ‘Resolution Plan’ for the promoter

shareholders2. Discrimination against the Promoters who are ‘personal

guarantors’

As the shareholders /promoters are not the Creditors, they cannot be treated at par with

other Creditors.

2. Further, different amount given to promoters/ shareholders and other equity

shareholders is not a discrimination.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/14th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20SKS%20Power%20Generation%20Chattisgarh%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20V%20Nagarajan,%20RP%20in%20Cethar%20Ltd._2018-12-16%2013:02:12.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/18th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Deccan%20Value%20Investors%20L.%20P.%20&%20Anr.%20Vs.%20Dinkar%20Venkatasubramanian%20&%20Ors._2018-12-19%2012:59:58.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/19th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Lalit%20Mishra%20&%20Ors.%20Vs.%20Sharon%20Bio%20Medicine%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20164-2018_2018-12-19%2018:02:46.pdf

47

18

Gammon India Ltd. Vs.

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd


2018.( 19th December,2018)

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Application against partnership .

As the AA rightly held that application is not maintainable against one of the members of

partnership firm, the appeal is dismissed.


19

Gursimran Singh, Director of

M/s Downtown Temptations Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Indiabulls Housing

Finance Ltd.


2018.




2. Settlement of issue/matter.

As no notice has been issued by the AA, the order passed for admission of insolvency

proceedings is set aside.2. Further, in view of settlement of matter, the

case is not remitted to AA.


20

Mukesh AgarwalVs.

Ultimate Infracity Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

I.A. No. 2081 & 2082 of 2018

INCompany Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 766-767 of 2018.




2. Settlement of issue/matter

As no notice has been issued by the AA, the order passed for admission of insolvency

proceedings is set aside.2. Further, in view of settlement of matter, the

case is not remitted to AA


21

Shailen Shah, Resolution Professional

Vs.DBM Geotechnics &

Construction Ltd


2018.( 20th December,2018)


Exclusion of period for counting the total period of 270 days of

resolution process.

Period between filing application for approval of the name of the appellant and date of

communication of the order is to be excluded for the purpose of counting the period of 270

days.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2019/Jan/gammon_2019-01-30%2014:24:47.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/20th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Gursimran%20Singh%20Vs.%20Indiabulls%20Housing%20Finance%20Pvt.%20Ltd._2018-12-23%2014:22:31.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/20th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Mukesh%20Agarwal%20Vs.%20Ultimate%20Infracity%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr._2018-12-24%2012:24:23.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/20th%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Shailen%20Shah,%20RP%20Vs.%20DBM%20Geotechnics%20&%20Construction%20Ltd._2018-12-23%2014:19:10.pdf

48

22

Mr. Nimish Mansukhlal VoraVs.

M/s. S.J. Impex & Ors.


2018.

( 21st December,2018)

Section 7 of I&B Code,2016 Settlement of matter

In view of the settlement between the parties, the order passed by AA is set aside.


23

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd

Vs.Kay Bouvet Engineering

Ltd.


2018.

( 21st December,2018)

Sections 8(1) & 9 of I&B

Code,2016

1. Transaction is an Operational Debt.

2. Non-Existence of dispute.

The appellant is an ‘Operational Creditor’ and there is no pre- existence of dispute. Hence, the

order passed by the AA is set aside.

2. The matter is remitted back to the AA to admit the petition.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/21st%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Nimish%20Mansukhlal%20Vora%20Vs.%20S.%20J.%20Impex%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20706-2018_2018-12-23%2014:14:09.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/21st%20Dec%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Overseas%20Infrastructure%20Alliance%20(India)%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Kay%20Bouvet%20Engineering%20Ltd._2018-12-23%2014:16:36.pdf

49

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

01 Uberlux Concepts LLP.


2018

(1st November,2018)

Section 10 of

I&B Code,2016

Non-furnishing of record of ‘default.’

The appellant is to file a fresh application along with record of ‘default’ and the ‘debt’ payable to

‘Financial Creditors’/ ‘Operational Creditors’.


02

Maharashtra Seamless Ltd.Vs.

K. K. Lakshminarayana & Ors


2018.

(12thNovember, 2018)


Re-determination of the Liquidation value while

entertaining approval of the plan by AA

Since the revised Resolution Plan has been approved by ‘CoCs’ and submitted by Resolution Professional , the AA is now required to pass the

appropriate order.


03

Lalit Mishra & Ors.Vs.

Sharon Bio Medicine Ltd. & Ors


No. 164 of 2018.

(12th November, 2018)


Contempt Petition on account of violation of order.

Since appointment of CEO was to ensure that the company remains on-going concern during

the pendency of appeal, the decision of MA cannot

be held in violation of orders .


NCLAT CASES FOR THE MONTH OF NOvEMBER.,2018

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/1st%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Uberlux%20Concepts%20LLP%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20666-2018_2018-11-06%2016:11:59.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/12th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Maharashtra%20Seamless%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20K.%20K.%20Lakshminarayana%20&%20Ors._2018-11-16%2011:18:28.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/12th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Lalit%20Mishra%20&%20Ors.%20Vs.%20Sharon%20Bio%20Medicine%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors._2018-11-16%2011:05:09.pdf

50

04

Mr. Anthony RaphaelKallarakkal

Vs.Rajendra K. Bhuta & Ors

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 608

-610 of 2018.


Sections 7 & 62(1) of I&B Code,2016

Appeal filed with petition for condonation of delay.

The appeal being barred by limitation is dismissed.


05

Saranya Forgings &Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Metal Gems & Ors



Regulation 34 of IBBI (Insolvency

Resolution Process for Corporate

Persons) Regulations, 2016.

Part payment of Resolution Professional fee and expenditure

Incurred .

The ‘Corporate Debtor’ is directed to pay the balance amount payable to Resolution

Professional within four weeks failing which interest @ 6% p. will be payable.


06

Francis John KattukaranVs.

The Federal Bank Ltd. & Anr


2018.

(13th November,2018)

Section 12A of I&B Code,2016 Withdrawal of application

Prayer for withdrawal of insolvency application admitted can only be made by the applicant

who initially filed the application before the AA.

Click here for full judgement..

07Radius Infratel Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Union Bank of India


2018.( 13th November, 2018)


Filing of appeal by Director of the company.

Appeal preferred by the Director of the company, under CIRP, is not maintainable. Hence, it is

dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/12th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Anthony%20Raphael%20Kallarakkal%20Vs.%20Rajendra%20K.%20Bhuta%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20608%20to%20610-2018_2018-11-16%2010:57:46.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/12th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Saranya%20Forgings%20&%20Engineers%20India%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%2093-2018_2018-11-16%2010:55:21.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Francis%20John%20Kattukaran%20Vs%20The%20Federal%20Bank%20Ltd%20&%20Anr%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20242%20-%202018_2018-12-01%2023:54:58.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/13th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Radius%20Infratel%20Pvt%20Ltd%20Vs%20Union%20Bank%20of%20India%20CA%20(AT)%20No.535%20-%202018_2018-11-15%2020:16:28.pdf

51

08Sudhi Sachdev

Vs.APPL Industries Ltd.


No. 623 of 2018.


Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Existence of dispute

Pendency of the case under Section 138/441 of NI Act, 1881 amounts to admission of debt.Hence, no merit in appeal and it is dismissed.


09Binani Industries Limited

Vs.Bank of Baroda & Anr


No. 82, 123, 188, 216 & 234of 2018.



1.Discrimination between the ‘ResolutionApplicants’.

2. The ‘Resolution Plan’ Submitted for approval is discriminatory.

The AA has righty held that the Resolution Plan submitted by ‘’Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd’ is

discriminatory.

2. Further, AA has rightly directed the ‘CoCs’ to reconsider the Resolution Plan submitted by

‘Utratech Cement Limited’.

3. In exercise of powers conferred u/s 31 of the Code and order of remand by Hon’ble Supreme Court, and being satisfied that the Resolution

Plan approved by the ‘CoCs’, the revised Resolution Plan submitted by Ultra tech Cement

Ltd. is approved.


10

Union of India & Anr.Vs.

Videocon Industries Ltd. & Ors


2018.

(20th November, 2018.)


Release of amount under profit petroleum

The oil companies shall not release amounts under profit petroleum till

disposal of MA. Meanwhile, AA is to consider the MA on its merit.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/13th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sudhi%20Sachdev%20Vs.%20APPL%20Industries%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20623-2018_2018-11-16%2010:51:34.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/14th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Binani%20Industries%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Bank%20of%20Baroda%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%2082-2018_2018-11-14%2017:12:47.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/20th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Union%20of%20India%20&%20Anr.%20Vs%20%20Videcon%20Industries%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20717-2018_2018-11-30%2013:28:56.pdf

52

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

11

Rajeev K AggarwalVs.

1. Panipat Texo Fabs Pvt. Ltd.

2. Exclusive Overseas Pvt. Ltd.


2018.



Dispute regarding supply of defective/ inferior quality of goods.

As there was no pre-existing dispute in regard to quality and standard of goods supplied, the

appeal stands dismissed.


12

Ajay ChaturvediVs.

JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

& Anr.


2018.


Sections 5(7),5(8) & 7 of I&B Code,2016

(i) ‘Substituted service’ of admission order was not made/

effected.

(I) No provision to file an insolvency application against the

‘Corporate Guarantor.’

Since the debt is payable and there exist default, service of notice of admission is merely a formality.

2. The liability in respect of ‘Corporate Guarantee’ Is covered under ‘Financial Debt’.

Therefore, application filed against the ‘Corporate Guarantor’

is maintainable


13

Anil NandaVs.

Hari Kishan Sharma & Ors


No. 167 of 2018.



There is nothing on record that there is a pre-existence dispute. Hence,

the appeal is dismissed.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/NCLAT%20Rajeev%20K%20Agarwal%20Vs%20Panipat%20Texo%20Fabs%20Pvt%20Ltd%20CA%20(AT)%20715%20-2018_2018-11-30%2009:48:29.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/29th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ajay%20Chaturvedi%20Vs%20JM%20Financial%20Asset%20Reconstruction%20CO.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20320-2018_2018-11-30%2013:17:40.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/29th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Anil%20Nanda%20Vs.%20Hari%20Kishan%20Sharma%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20Insolvency)%20No.%20167-2018_2018-11-30%2013:12:28.pdf

53

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

14

(i)Sh. Naveen LuthraVs.

Bell Finvest (India) Ltd. & Anr

(Appeal No. 336 of 2017)

(ii) Advance Logistics & Trading India Private

Vs.Bell Finvest (India) Ltd.(Appeal No. 07 of 2018)

(iii)Bell Finvest (India) Limited

Vs.Intercon Container &

Survey & Commodities Pvt. Ltd

(Appeal No. 10 of 2018)


2017 and 07 &10 of 2018.



Application of usurious and extortionate penal

interest by ‘Financial Creditor’

(i)Appeal Nos.336 of 2017 and 07 of 2018: ‘Usurious Loans Act, 1918’ is not

applicable to the proceeding u/s 7 of the Code. Further, as there exist,

debt and default, the appeal is not maintainable.

(ii) Appeal No.10 of 2018:Again as the Act is not applicable for initiation

of ‘CIRP’, the order passed by AA is set aside. The case is remitted to the AA for hearing the

application for admission.


15

Ankit PatniVs.

State Bank of India & Anr.


2018.(29th November, 2018)


Non-compliance of guidelines contained in RBI Circular.

RBI circulars cannot override the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’.

Further, since there is no dispute about existence of debt and default, the appeal is

devoid of any merit. Hence, dismissed.


16

SICOM LimitedVs.

Alok Employees Benefit and Welfare Trust & Ors


2018.


Sections 30(4), 33(2) & 60(5)

of I&B Code,2016

To present the‘Resolution Plan’

before the CoCs for a re-look.

The CoCs are directed to consider the ‘Resolution Plan’ wherineafter RP to place

the matter before AA for order. As such, the appeal is dismissed.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/29th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sh.%20Naveen%20Luthra%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20336,%2007%20&%2010-2017_2018-11-30%2013:10:04.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/29th%20Nov%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Ankit%20Patni%20Vs%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20369-2018_2018-11-30%2011:52:03.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Nov/SICOM%20Ltd%20Vs%20Alok%20Employees%20Benefit%20Welfare%20Trust%20&%20Ors%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20344-2018_2018-11-30%2010:05:36.pdf

54

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

17

Usha Holdings LL.C. & Anr.Vs.

Francorp Advisors Pvt. Ltd.



Sections 5(20), 5(21) & 9 of I&B

Code,2016

1. Jurisdiction of AA to decide the legality and viability of foreign

decree.

2. The debt is ‘ Operational Debt’

1. AA has no jurisdiction to decide the question of legality/propriety of a foreign judgment.

2. As the amount claim does not relate to supply of goods/services, it is not an Operational Debt.

Hence the appeal is dismissed.


18

Nityank Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Invex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr


No. 499 of 2018.


Sections 7 and 65 of

I&B Code,2016

Fraudulent/ malicious Initiation of insolvency resolution

proceedings.

Since Appellant failed to establish that insolvency application was filed by ‘Financial

Creditor’ fraudulently or with malicious intent, the appeal is dismissed.


19

Neha Himatsingka & Anr.Vs.

Himatsingka ResortsPrivate Limited & Anr.


of 2018.


1.Section 7 of I&B Code,2016

2. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

Exercising of inherent powers by AA

AA has no jurisdiction to exercise inherent power for deciding any disputed question whether

claim is bonafide or malafide.

2. As there is debt payable and there exist default, the case is fit for admission.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Usha%20Holdings%20LL.C.%20&%20Anr.%20vs%20Freancorp%20Advisors%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%2044-2018_2018-12-03%2018:13:31.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Nityank%20Infrapower%20&%20Multiventures%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20vs%20Invex%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20499-2018_2018-12-03%2018:12:42.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Neha%20Himatsingka%20&%20Anr%20vs%20Himatsingka%20Resorts%20Private%20Limited%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20201-2018_2018-12-03%2018:11:31.pdf

55

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

20

Nathella Depositors Welfare Association

Vs.Union of India, Through

its Secretary,Ministry of Finance


2018.


Section 5(8)of I&B Code,2016 Status of Depositors.

Depositors do not come within the definition of ‘financial debts’.

However, it is to be ensured that the proposed ‘Resolution Plan’ has provision for the

depositors in terms of the Code.


21

M/s. Acquisory Consulting LLP

Vs.M/s. BCC Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd.


2018.


Sections 8(1) & 9 of I&B

Code,2016

Dispute in regard to providing services

Non-service of Demand Notice and absence of services rendered to ‘Corporate Debtor’, the

appeal is not maintainable.


22

Mrs. MamathaVs.

AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors


2018.



Filing of a insolvency petition jointly against the two ‘Corporate

Debtors’.

As the two ‘Corporate Debtors’ collaborated and formed an independent

Corporate unit entity,the insolvency petition is maintainable against

both of them jointly. As such, the case is remitted to the AA for its

admission.


23

Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.

Resolution Professional for the Corporate

Debtor)Vs.

Government of India,Ministry of Coal


(30thNovember, 2018)


During Moratorium’, the right vested with the ‘Corporate Debtor’

cannot be taken away.

As vesting of the Coal Mines is not under occupation/possession of CD,

orders of cancellation of agreement are not in violation of Code.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Nathella%20Depositors%20Welfare%20Association%20vs%20UOI,%20Through%20its%20Secretary,%20Ministry%20of%20Finance%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20732-2018_2018-12-03%2018:10:10.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Ms%20Acquisory%20Consulting%20LLP%20vs%20Ms%20BCC%20Infrastructure%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20152-2018_2018-12-03%2018:06:53.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Mrs.%20Mamatha%20vs%20AMB%20Infrabuild%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20155-2018_2018-12-03%2018:05:32.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Monnet%20Ispat%20&%20Energy%20Ltd.%20vs%20GOI,%20Ministry%20of%20Coal%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%2026-2018_2018-12-03%2018:04:31.pdf

56

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

24

J.B. TiwariVs.

1. Biostadt India Limited2. Sonachi Industries

Limited

Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 268 of 2018.


Sections 8 & 9 of the I&B Code,2016

1. Non-service of Notice by AA through its Registry.

2. Dispute reg. quality of goods and claim.

1. It would have been appropriate had the AA sent the Notice through its own mechanism.

2. No dispute regarding quality of goods supplied and claim exists.

Hence, the insolvency application has been rightly admitted by AA.


25

Gaurav PandeyVs.

Eternity Investment Services

Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.


2018.


Section 7 of I&B Code,2016 Settlement of dues

Since the parties have already entered into settlement of dues and there exists no default

as on date of admission of application, the order of the AA is set aside.


26

Archisha Steels Private Limited

Vs.State Bank of India and

Anr


No. 440 of 2018.



Rejection of restructuring plan prior to initiation of insolvency

proceedings.

AA is not authorised to determine legality of the order of rejection of restructuring plan by

the ‘Financial Creditor’ prior to initiation of insolvency proceedings.

As such, the appeal is not maintainable and dismissed.


27

Achenbach Buschhutten GmbH & Co.

Vs.Arcotech Limited


No. 97 of 2017.


Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Pre-existence of dispute.

Since there is existence of dispute, the appeal filed is non-maintainable and stands dismissed.


https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20J.B.%20Tiwari%20vs%20Boistadt%20India%20Limited%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20268-2018_2018-12-03%2018:03:06.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Gaurav%20Pandey%20vs%20Eternity%20Invwestment%20Services%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20714-2018_2018-12-03%2017:57:47.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Archisha%20Steels%20Private%20Limited%20vs%20State%20Bank%20of%20India%20and%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20440-2018_2018-12-03%2017:56:28.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/30th%20Nov%202018%20In%20the%20matter%20of%20Achenbach%20Buschhutten%20GmbH%20&%20Co.%20vs%20Arcotech%20Limited%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%2097-2018_2018-12-03%2017:54:55.pdf

57

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

01

The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata.

Vs.Stewarts and Lloyds of

India Ltd.


No. 367 of 2018

(3rdOctober,2018)


Non- Cooperation to the liquidator for evaluation of assets.

Since Valuation report has already been prepared by the liquidator, there is no ground to

interfere with the order passed by AA.


02D.R. Balakrishna Raja

Vs.Indian Bank & Anr.


No. 611 of 2018.

(3rdOctober,2018)


Infirmities regarding non filling of:

I) application duly signed by authorized

representative

ii)banker’s record

iii)consent letter of I RP

Once the record of ‘debt’ and ‘default’ is brought on record by ‘Financial Creditor’, the

insolvency application cannot be rejected.



03

Mr. Suresh Padmanabhan & Anr.

Vs.Tata Steel Ltd. & Ors


No. 29 of 2018.(4thOctober, 2018).

Section 10(1) & 252 of

I&B Code, 2016.

Section 4(b) of SICA Repeal

Act,2003

Non-Filing of Insolvency reference within 180 days from the date of

abatement of reference.

The ‘Corporate Applicant’ can file an independent application’ even after 180 days of abatement of the reference on payment of

requisite fee. Accordingly, the order of the AA is set aside.


NCLAT CASES FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER,2018

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/3rd%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20The%20Board%20of%20Trustees%20for%20the%20Port%20of%20Kolkata..%20Vs.%20Stewarts%20and%20Lloyds%20of%20India%20Ltd._2018-10-25%2015:08:30.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/3rd%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20D.%20R.%20Balakrishna%20Raja%20Vs.%20Indian%20Bank%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20611-2018_2018-10-25%2014:29:25.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/4th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Suresh%20Padmanabhan%20&%20Anr.%20Tata%20Steel%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%2029-2018_2018-10-25%2014:18:53.pdf

58

04

Husqvarna AB (PUBL) Vs.

Allianz Mechanisation India Pvt. Ltd


No. 321 of 2018(4thOctober, 2018).


Non – Existence of dispute

As there is an existence of dispute, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the

claim. Hence appeal is dismissed.


05

Sudhir Sales & Services Ltd.Vs.

D-Art Furniture Systems Pvt. Ltd


No. 327 of 2018.(4thOctober, 2018).


Non – Existence of dispute

There is no pre-existing dispute. As such, the order passed by the AA stands set aside and

the case is remitted to AA for admission.


06

Electro Mech EngineersVs.

Electrosteel Steels Ltd. & Ors


No. 602 ,603, 604 & 605 of 2018.

(4thOctober, 2018).

Section 61(2) of I&B

Code,2016

Condonation of delay in filling appeal.

In view of the (i) long delay in filling appeal (ii) approval of the ‘Resolution Plan’ by AA and

(iii) takeover of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, by the Resolution Applicant, the appeals

filed are dismissed.


07

Spectrum Voyages Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.Fortis Healthcare Ltd.


No. 409 of 2018.(4thOctober, 2018).

Section 60(1) of

I&B Code,2016

Territorial jurisdiction of AA for Corporate Persons

As the Corporate Person’s registered office is situated at Gurgaon (Haryana), the petition filed at NCLT New Delhi is not maintainable.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/4th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Husqvarna%20AB%20(PUBL)%20Vs.%20Allianz%20Mechanisation%20India%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20321-2018_2018-10-25%2014:10:05.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/4th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sudhir%20Sales%20&%20Services%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20D-Art%20Furniture%20Systems%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20327-2018_2018-10-25%2014:03:20.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/4th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Electro%20Mech%20Engineers%20Vs.%20Electrosteel%20Steels%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20602-2018_2018-10-25%2013:44:54.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/4th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Spectrum%20Voyages%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Fortis%20Healthcare%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20409-2018_2018-10-25%2013:40:24.pdf

59

08

Sh. Jagdish Pershad Gupta, Director &

Shareholder of (M/s. Jagson International

Ltd.)Vs.

JPC Enterprises & Anr


No. 595 of 2018.(5thOctober, 2018).

Section 9 of I&B Code,2016 Settlement of dispute.

As the matter has been settled between the parties, the order passed by Adjudicating

Authority is set aside.


09

Power Mech Projects Ltd.Vs.

Savan Godiawala, R.P. / Liquidator for Lanco

Infratech Ltd. & Anr


No. 620 of 2018.(5thOctober, 2018


Permission to submit Resolution Plan after order for liquidation.

After passing of liquidation order & in the absence of its challenge, the application for submission of the

Resolution Plan is uncalled for.


10

A.ManickamVs.

G. V. Ravikumar, R.P & Anr


No. 619 of 2018.(5thOctober, 2018)


Resolution Professional to invite resolution plans afresh.

As the appellant has not challenged the Resolution Plan approved by the AA,

no relief is granted. The appeal , devoid of any merit, is dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/5th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Sh.%20Jagdish%20Pershad%20Gupta%20Vs.%20JPC%20Enterprises%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20595-2018_2018-10-09%2009:55:50.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/5th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Power%20Mech%20Projects%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Savan%20Godiawala,%20RP-Liquidator%20for%20Lanco%20Infratech_2018-10-25%2013:33:22.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/5th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20A.%20Manickam%20Vs.%20G.%20V.%20Ravikumar,%20R.P.%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20619-2018_2018-10-25%2013:29:23.pdf

60

11

Jaya PatelVs.

Gas Jeans Pvt. Ltd. & Ors


No. 308 of 2018.

(8thOctober, 2018)


Filing of application for CIRP prior to completion of mandatory

period under Demand Notice.

Insolvency application preferred before completion of ten days from the date

of delivery of Demand Notice cannot be entertained and is not maintainable. Hence,

application is dismissed as abated.


12

Lotus Three Development Ltd.

Vs.Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr


No. 624 of 2018.

(22nd October, 2018)


The ‘Financial Creditor’ played fraud in filing the application.

As there exists a debt and default,there is no ground to interfere. Hence appeal

stands dismissed.


13

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd.

Vs.State Bank of India &

Ors.

I.A. No. 1690 of 2018IN


No. 405 of 2018

(24thOctober, 2018)

Sections 7 & 31 of I&B Code,2016 Necessary permission to take over

the ‘Corporate Debtor’

As the ‘Resolution Professional’ cannot function after the approval of Resolution Plan,

the ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’ is allowed to take over the assets and management of the

‘Corporate Debtor’.


14Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim

Vs.M/s Rent A Computer


No. 617 of 2018.

(25th October, 2018)


There is pre- existence of dispute but as the parties have now settled the matter, the AA

order is set aside.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/8th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Jaya%20Patel%20Vs.%20Gas%20Jeans%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20308-2018_2018-10-23%2015:33:35.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/22nd%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Lotus%20Three%20Development%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Axis%20Bank%20Ltd.%20&%20Anr._2018-10-23%2015:36:53.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Oct/24th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20SREI%20Infrastructure%20Finance%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20State%20Bnak%20of%20India%20&%20Ors.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20405-2018_2018-10-31%2010:15:39.pdf

https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2018/Dec/25th%20Oct%202018%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Dr.%20Syed%20Sabahat%20Azim%20Vs.%20Rent%20A%20Computer%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20617-2018_2018-12-16%2012:32:30.pdf

61

HIGH COuRT JuDGEMENTS FROM 01.10.2018 TO 31.03.2019

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

01

1.Mrs. Jai Rajkumar2.Mr.v.r.heamntraj

Vs.1.Stanbic Bank Ghana

Limited2.Rajkumar Impex

Private Limited

C.S. (Comm. Div.) D.No.41408 of 2018

(4th December,2018)

Sections 7 &14(1)(a) of I&B

Code,2016

Authority to initiate proceedings assailing the foreign decree.

This suit is not maintainable. Reserves the rights of CD to

approach NCLT, and RP to file a suit if the NCLT permits him to do so.


http://164.100.79.153/judis/chennai/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/432535

62

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

01

Arcelormittal India Private Limited

Vs.S Satish Kumar Gupta

& Ors

Civil Appeal Nos.9402-9405 Of 2018 And 9582

Of 2018

( 4Th October,2018)

Sections 7 & 29(A) Of

I &B Code, 2016.

Article 142 Of Constitution Of

India.

Ineligibility Of Resolution Applicants To Submit

Resolution Plans

One More Opportunity Is Given To The Resolution Applicants To Pay Off The Npas Of

Their Related Corporate Debtors Within A Period Of Two Weeks. On Making Such Payment They

Can Resubmit Their Resolution Plans


02

B.k. Educational Services Private Limited

Vs. Parag Gupta And

Associates

Civil Appeal No.23988 Of 2017 With Six Other

Appeals

( 11Th October,2018)

Section 238A Of I&B Code, 2016

Applicability Of Limitation Act,1963

As The Limitation Act Has Been Applied From The Inception Of The Code, It Is Unnecessary To Go Into The Arguments Based On The Doctrine

Of Laches. The Appeals Are Remanded To Nclat.


03

Transmission Corporation Of Andhra

Pradesh Limited Vs.

Equipment Conductors And Cables Limited

Civil Appeal No. 9597 Of 2018

( 23Rd October,2018)

Section 9 Of I&B Code, 2016 Admission Of Insolvency Reference.

The Order Passed By Appellate Authority Is Set Aside. The Order Passed By Nclt To Reject The

Application Of Respondent Is Justified.


SuPREME COuRT JuDGEMENTS FROM 01.10.2018 TO 31.03.2019

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/41322/41322_2017_Judgement_11-Oct-2018.pdf

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/34994/34994_2018_Order_23-Oct-2018.pdf

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/33945/33945_2018_Judgement_04-Oct-2018.pdf

63

04

M/S Spartek Ceramics India Ltd.

Vs.Union Of India & Ors

Civil Appeal Nos. 7291-7292 Of 2018 With Two

Other Appeals.

( 25Th October,2018)

Section 242 Of I&B Code,2016

Removal Of Difficulties In Giving Effect To The Provision Of Code.

Civil Appeal No. 7291-7292 Of 2018:

While Upholding The Judgment Passed By The Appellate Tribunal On The Ground That The Appeal Filed By The Central Govt. Itself Was

Not Maintainable, The Judgment Insofar As It Purports To Deal With The Limitation Aspect

Of The Case And The Merits Including The Declaration Of The Scheme As Being Illegal Is

Set Aside.

Civil Appeal No. 8247 Of 2018: Civil Appeal No. D. No. 33241/2018 :

The Two Writ Petitions That Had Been Before The High Court Of Delhi Are Revived With Liberty

To The Appellants To Amend The Same. The High Court Of Delhi To Take The Up The Writ

Petitions At The Earliest.


05

Rajputana Properties Private Limited Vs.Ultratech Cement

Limited And Ors

Civil Appeal No. 10998 Of 2018

(19Th November,2018)

Sections 30 & 31 Of

I&B Code,2016

1.Discrimination Between The ‘Resolution Applicants’.

2. The ‘Resolution Plan’ Submitted For Approval

Is Discriminatory

There Is No Infirmity In The Orders Passed By Nclat. Hence The Appeal Is Dismissed.


S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/25368/25368_2018_Order_25-Oct-2018.pdf

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/42769/42769_2018_Order_19-Nov-2018.pdf

64

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

06

Jaipur Metals & Electricals Employees Organization Through

General Secretary Mr. Tej Ram Meena Vs. Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd.

Through Its Managing Director & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 12023 Of 2018.

( 12Th December,2018)

Sections 7 & 238 Of I&B, 2016

Transfer Of Winding Up Proceedings To Aa

The Aa Was Absolutely Correct In Applying Section 238 Of The Code To Independent

Proceedings Instituted By A Secured Financial Creditor.

The High Court Judgment Is Set Aside.


07

Brilliant Alloys Private Limited

Vs.Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors.

Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 31557/2018.

( 14Th December,2018)

Section 12A Of I&B, 2016 &

Regulation 30A

Withdrawal Of Insolvency Application On Settlement

The Settlement Entered Into Is Allowed.


08

Forech India Ltd Vs.

Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.


( 22Nd January,2019)

Sections 7 & 238 Of I&B Code, 2016

Continuation Of Winding Up Petition Before High Court.

Without Interfering With The Appellate Tribunal’s Order, The Appellant May Apply

U/S 434 Of The Companies Act For Transfer Of Winding Up Proceedings Pending Before High

Court To The Nclt.


https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/24422/24422_2018_Judgement_12-Dec-2018.pdf

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/42767/42767_2018_Order_14-Dec-2018.pdf

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/559/559_2018_Judgement_22-Jan-2019.pdf

65

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

09

Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.Union Of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 Of 2018.Plus 10 Other

Appeals

( 25Th January,2019)

Different Provisions Of I&B

Code, 2016

Constitutional Validity Of Various Provisions Of The Insolvency And

Bankruptcy Code, 2016

The Constitutional Validity Of Various Provisions Of The I&B, Code Discussed. The Code Is Proving

To Be Largely Successful. The Defaulter’s Paradise Is Lost And Economy’s Rightful Position

Has Been Regained. Therefore, All Petition Disposed Of In Terms Of The Judgement.


10

Vijay Kumar JainVs.

Standard Chartered Bank & Ors

Civil Appeal No.8430 Of 2018 & Writ Petition (Civil)

No.1266 Of 2018.

( 31St January,2019)

Sections 24 & 30(3) Of I&B Code,

2016

Permission To Access Documents, Including The Resolution Plans To

The Member Of The Suspended Board Of Directors.

The Petition & Appeal Is Allowed The Nclat Judgment Set Aside.


11

K. SashidharVs.

Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.

Civil Appeal No.10673 Of 2018

With Two Other Appeals And A Slp.

( 5Th February,2019)

Sections 33 & 34 Of I&B Code,2016

Rejection Of Resolution Plan(S) As It Did Not Garner Support Of Not Less Than 75% Of Voting Share

Of The Financial Creditors.

The Nclat Has Justly Concluded That The Resolution Plan Of The Concerned Corporate

Debtor(S) Has Not Been Approved By Requisite Percentage Of Voting Shares Of

The Financial Creditors. As Such, Initiation Of Liquidation Process Is Inevitable. Accordingly,

The Appeals Are Dismissed.




https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/39315/39315_2018_Order_05-Feb-2019.pdf

66

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

12

Reliance Communication Limited & Ors.

Vs. State Bank Of India & Ors

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 845 Of 2018 And Three

Contempt Petitions.


Section 9 Of I&B Code, 2016

Payment Of Settled Amount To The ‘Operational Creditor’

The Rcom Group Is Directed To Purge The Contempt Of This Court By Payment To Ericson

Of Amount Settled Within Four Weeks.

In Default Of Such Payment, The Chairmen Who Have Given Undertakings To The Court Will

Suffer Three Months’ Imprisonment.


13

Ved Prakash Vadera & Ors.Vs.

Ireo Five River Private Ltd

Civil Appeal No.12204 Of 2018.


Section 9 Of I&B Code, 2016

Rejection Of Prayer To Appoint Independent Auditor.

Since Insolvency Application Has Been Admitted, There Is No Reason To Interfere

In The Matter.


14

Mecon FzeVs.

Quinn Logistics India Pvt Ltd


( 5Th March,2019)

- Settlement Between The Parties.

Deed Of Settlement Taken On Record.

The Appeal Is Disposed Of And The Insolvency Proceedings Stand Terminated.


https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/25956/25956_2018_Judgement_20-Feb-2019.pdf

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/44379/44379_2018_Order_26-Feb-2019.pdf

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/26179/26179_2018_Order_05-Mar-2019.pdf

67

S No.

Name of the Parties



01 02 03 04 05 06

15

Jai Balaji Industries Limited

Vs.State Bank Of India &

Ors.

Civil Appeal No.1929 Of 2019

( 8Th March,2019)

Section 7 Of I&B Code, 2016 Non-Service Of Notice

It Is Clear That No Notice Was Served Upon The Appellant. The Right Of Appellant To Be

Heard Has Been Violated. Accordingly, The Order Passed By Nclat Is Set Aside And Remand The Matter Back To Nclat To Dispose Of The Same

Expeditiously After Affording An Opportunity Of Hearing To The Parties.


https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/5828/5828_2019_Judgement_08-Mar-2019.pdf