Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

NCLAT Upholds Corporate Liquidation Decision Despite Challenge to Financial Creditor Status"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the adjudicating authority has upheld the decision for the liquidation of a corporate debtor despite a challenge to the status of a financial creditor. The judgement, delivered by Justice Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra, reaffirms the importance of commercial wisdom in such matters.

The judgement, consisting of three parts, addresses a complex legal dispute involving the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review available to the adjudicating authority. The case centered around the application of the IBC's provisions in relation to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and subsequent liquidation.

The court highlighted the crucial role of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in determining whether a corporate debtor should be revived or liquidated. The CoC's business decision-making authority was underscored, and the judgement emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority should refrain from evaluating the rationale behind the CoC's commercial decisions.

The ruling rejected a challenge to the financial creditor status of a party referred to as SHPL. The court held that the payments made by SHPL did not meet the criteria for 'Financial Debt' as defined under the IBC. The court pointed out that the payments were part of an agreement involving reciprocal rights and obligations for land development, and the claim did not fall under the purview of 'Financial Debt.'

Furthermore, the judgement addressed concerns about the timing of the liquidation decision. The court acknowledged the IBC's preference for resolution over liquidation but affirmed that liquidation can be initiated if the CoC, exercising its commercial wisdom, finds revival unfeasible.

The decision also clarified that the Adjudicating Authority's role in such matters is limited to reviewing the decision-making process and ensuring due process compliance. The court found that the CoC had appropriately followed procedures in reaching its decision and that the liquidation proposal was rightly placed before the Adjudicating Authority.

This landmark judgement reaffirms the significance of CoC decisions and commercial wisdom in corporate insolvency proceedings. It also clarifies the role of the Adjudicating Authority in reviewing such decisions, focusing on procedural adherence rather than interfering with the business decisions of the majority stakeholders.

 Date of Decision: 01-09-2023

Faridabad, Haryana vs Ms. Priyanka Chouhan

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Babu_Lal_Aggarwal_vs_Manish_Kumar_Ors_on_1_September_2023_NCLT.pdf"]

Latest Legal News