1. The bench held that when Appellant has not challenged the non-acceptance of claim, it cannot be a ground to raise the issue after approval of the Resolution Plan by CoC.
Anuradha Grover v. Mr. Jayesh Sanghrajka & AnrCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 257 of 2023
2. The bench held that the application which is barred by time has to be rejected by the Court even if no defence of limitation was raised.
M/s. Sheetal Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Swastic Sales Corporation Pvt. LtdComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 640 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2122 of 2023
3. The bench held that Section 31, sub-section (4) proviso has to be read to mean that though the approval by the CCI is ‘mandatory’, the approval by the CCI prior to approval of CoC is ‘directory’.
Soneko Marketing Private Limited …. Appellant Vs Girish Sriram Juneja & OrsCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2721 of 2023
4. The bench held that the Application filed by the Appellant cannot be held to be barred by time there being continuous acknowledgment in their respective balance sheets of the Corporate Debtor which acknowledgment was within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act extending the period of limitation by fresh period of limitation by each acknowledgment.
Jumbo Chemicals & Allied Industries v. Arjun Industries LimitedCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 948 of 2022
5. The bench noted that section 44(1)(d) contemplates a direction requiring any person to pay such sums in respect of benefits received by him from the Corporate Debtor. Thus direction can be given to a person who has received benefits from the Corporate Debtor.
Mr. Saptarshi Nath v. Mr. Alexander John SouterCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1356 of 2022
6. The bench held that it is a settled law that CIRP has to be completed in maximum period of 330 days but in exceptional circumstances, extension can be granted as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.- (2020) 8 SCC 531”.
Committee of Creditors of Dr. Jain Video on Wheels Ltd. Represented through Punjab National Bank v. Mr. Vikram Kumar Resolution Professional for Dr. Jain Video on Wheels Ltd.Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1249 of 2023
7. The bench held that under the Liquidation Regulations, 2016, Liquidator is entitled to reduce the reserve price after each auction notice and when no one came forward, the reserve price was reduced to Rs.14.6 Crores in which we do not find any error.
Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. Mr. Krishna Kumar ChhapariaCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1250 of 2023
[Written by Kumar Aditya (email@example.com)]