IBC, 2016 : Replacement of Resolution Professional Is Permissible

 IBC, 2016 : Replacement of Resolution Professional Is Permissible 

An important Decision was given by Chennai Bench of NCLAT on 15 December 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 319 / 2022. [Available free of cost at https://nclat.nic.in/display-board/judge] 

One can gather from Dr. K.V. Srinivas [2022] GCtR 1802 (NCLAT, Chennai) that replacement of Resolution Professional under IBC, 2016 is permissible. 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.  

IBC, 2016 : Resolution Professional Is a Public Servant

 IBC, 2016 : Resolution Professional Is a Public Servant

A recent Judgment has been passed on 5 April 2023 by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M.P. 1048 of 2021.

In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v CBI [2023] GCtR 837 (Jharkhand), it has been held that the resolution professional will come within the meaning of a public servant under Section 2(c) the PC Act.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.

On IBC, 2016 : A Recent View of Feb 2023

 On IBC, 2016 : A Recent View 

An interesting decision has been passed by Hon'ble NCLAT on 7 February 2023 in context of IBC, 2016.

One can go through case citation Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India v GTL Infrastructure Ltd [2023] GCtR 374 (NCLAT).

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.  

IBC, 2016 : 5 Important Judgments of Supreme Court

 IBC, 2016 : 5 Important Judgments of Supreme Court

Many decisions deal with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

5 important ones dealing with IBC, 2016 are as follows : 

1. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v Union of India & Ors [2019] GCtR 1313 (SC).

2. Innoventive Industries Ltd v ICICI Bank [2017] GCtR 1171 (SC)

3. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr v Union of india [2019] GCtR 628 (SC).

4. Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt Ltd v Edelweiss ARC Ltd [2021] GCtR 3372 (SC).

5. Ebix Singapore Private Limited  v Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr [2021] GCtR 2124 (SC).

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.  

IBC, 2016 [India] : 10 Recent Decisions on IBC, 2016

 10 Recent Decisions on IBC, 2016 

1. Whether the remarks regarding ‘Default’ on the part of the Personal Guarantor should sustain ? Citation - [2021] GCtR 3041 

2. Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP)'s conduct deprecated ; appeal dismissed. Citation : [2022] GCtR 109 

3. Delay in filing appeals under IBC, 2016 : Delay in refiling the Memo of Appeal condoned. Citation - [2022] GCtR 112

4.Modification of Resolution Plan - Order under challenge upheld. Citation - [2022] GCtR 113 

5. If an application for early hearing for appeal filed under IBC, 2016 is filed, then it can be directed that the said appeal is to be listed for hearing after 9 days when the application for urgent hearing was heard. Citation - [2022] GCtR 114

6. An application under S.9 of IBC, 2016 was rejected which was challenged by way of appeal. Purport of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's Judgment referred by a party explained and clarified. Citation - [2022] GCtR 115

7. When a person whose name from the list of Resolution applicants has been removed which was also affirmed by NCLT, then if such person approaches NCLAT, then NCLAT has power to direct CoC not to take final decision on Resolution Plan for a certain time. Citation - [2022] GCtR 116

8.Definition of "debt" under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") explained. Order admitting application against Corporate Debtor was set aside. Citation  - [2022] GCtR 117

9. Appeal was filed by the Director of the Corporate Debtor Company. Moratorium was there in operation and Ld. NCLT had passed an Order against Director of the Company which was a corporate debtor. Corporate Debtor Director's appeal dismissed. Citation - [2022] GCtR 118

10. Citing the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and explaining the role of NCLT through judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the need of CoC's approval in factual background of this case was also discussed. It has been commented after referring facts that NCLT has not considered the facts ; Order of NCLT was finally set aside. The plea of the party which had initiated CIRP was allowed. Citation - [2022] GCtR 119

Written by

Vishal

Guwahati, Assam 

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Guwahati Jurisdiction.

SC : S.14 of IBC, 2016 "refers to four matters that may be prohibited once the moratorium comes into effect"

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in context of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 that "Section 14 refers to four matters that may be prohibited once the moratorium comes into effect." This Judgment was authored by Hon'ble J. R.F. Nariman.

You can download full text Judgment Free of Cost from main.sci.gov.in

Written by

Vishal

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/thesis/law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made.