Gratuity Dues Of Workers Do Not Form Part Of 'Liquidation Estate' Of Corporate Debtor, Must Be Paid In Full: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that gratuity dues are statutorily protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and do not form part of the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The court held that gratuity payments are outside the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC and must be paid in full, irrespective of the resolution plan. It further observed that Section 14 of the Payment of...

Corporate Debtor Immune From Prosecution Under PMLA Post Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that in accordance with Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Corporate Debtor that has successfully undergone a resolution process under Section 31 of the IBC shall not be prosecuted for offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP. Brief Facts On 26.07.2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) initiated corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against...

Proviso To S.10A Of IBC Doesn't Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period. The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for...

Moratorium U/S 14 Of IBC Doesn't Exempt Promoter From Complying With Mandatory Pre-Deposit Required U/S 43(5) Of RERA: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not exempt a promoter from complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). It was observed that the moratorium applied only to the particular project under insolvency proceedings and not to other...

Directors Cannot Be Held Liable For Dishonour Of Cheques After Commencement Of CIRP Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has reiterated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishnonour of cheque cannot continue against individuals once a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is in effect. Brief Facts The petitions seek to quash the summoning order dated 01.04.2022 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, in CC No. 9170/2020, filed under Section...

Sole Financial Creditor Can't Entertain Request For One-Time Settlement Once CIRP Proceedings Have Commenced: Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court has dismissed a Writ petition filed by Mandava Holdings Private Limited challenging the rejection of the one-time settlement (OTS) proposal offer made to PTC India Financial Services Limited so as to stop CIRPC proceedings without considering the RBI framework for compromise settlement and technical write-offs.The petitioner contended that PTC India Financial Services Limited was wrong in approving the resolution plan without considering the settlement offer and prayed that...

Delisting Regulations Of SEBI Not Applicable To Delisting Of Equity Shares Under Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices M.S.Sonak and Jitendra Jain has held that Delisting Regulations framed by the SEBI would not be applicable to the delisting of shares of the company in pursuance of the approval of a Resolution Plan under section 31 of the code. Brief Facts In this case, the petitioner challenges the vires of Regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the SEBI Delisiting Regulations, 2021 on the ground that it is violative of the SEBI Act. Along with this, the petitioner also...

Asset Deposited By Corporate Debtor As Security Before CIRP Commencement Continues To Be Asset Of Corporate Debtor: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that monies or any other asset deposited by a corporate debtor in court prior to commencement of CIRP by way of security would continue to be the asset of the corporate debtor.Brief Facts:The Appellant (Corporate Debtor) was directed to pay Rs. 12 lakh as damages along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a to the Respondent in a judgment dated 13.06.2016. In an appeal challenging the said judgment, an...

All Claims Prior To Approval Of Resolution Plan Stand Extinguished U/S 31 Of IBC: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Abhay J Mantri held that once the petitioner has acquired the assets of the corporate debtor, the claims, if any, which were not raised, stand extinguished and the respondent cannot now seek to recover those claims from the petitioner, who acquired the assets of the corporate debtor through auction process under the IBC. Brief Facts The petitioner Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and...

Bombay High Court Upholds Suspension Of Resolution Professional For Deficiency In Discharge Of Duties

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has upheld that the suspension order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against the Resolution Professional (RP) for lack of due diligence in verifying the Resolution Plan and non-intimation of the claims of an operational creditor. Facts: The Petitioner, Vijendra Kumar Jain was appointed as the RP of M/s Transparent Energy System Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate...

Resolution Professional At S.94/95 Stage Cannot Decide On Maintainability Of Petition By Entering Into Merits: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and K.V. Aravind, held that the role of the Registrar while registering the application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is not adjudicatory in nature and this duty of the Registrar, NCLT was in no way adjudicatory trapping. Application of judicial mind towards merits has no place in discharge of a ministerial or clerical function. Brief Facts A petition under section 95 of the IBC was...

Bombay High Court Holds Redevelopment Rights of Society Not Part Of Moratorium Process; Issues Writ Of Mandamus For Redevelopment, Upholding Right to Shelter

The Bombay High Court division bench of Justices Kamal Khata and M.S. Sonak has held that if the developer fails to meet its obligations under the Development Agreement, such as paying transit rent and completing construction within the specified time frame, there is a complete failure of consideration, and no rights accrue to it. The court awarded a writ of mandamus for permissions and approvals for redevelopment. It observed that the uncertain outcome of a Corporate Insolvency...