TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>NCLAT overturns Adjudicating Authority order, emphasizes IBC compliance, natural justice</h1> <h3>M/s Orbit Electro Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Siddharth Shah Versus Mr. Kapil Dev Taneja (Ex Resolution Professional), Monitoring Committee of Apex Drugs Ltd. Through Mr. Kapil Dev Taneja (Ex Resolution Professional)</h3> M/s Orbit Electro Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Siddharth Shah Versus Mr. Kapil Dev Taneja (Ex Resolution Professional), Monitoring Committee of Apex Drugs ... Issues involved:- Dispute over the implementation of a resolution plan- Allegations of non-compliance by the successful resolution applicant- Direction by the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the resolution plan- Forfeiture of amounts paid by the resolution applicant- Challenge to the legality of the Adjudicating Authority's order- Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority post-approval of resolution planDetailed Analysis:1. Dispute over the implementation of a resolution plan:The Adjudicating Authority observed that the successful resolution applicant failed to implement the approved resolution plan fully, leading to a delay in payments and non-compliance issues. This resulted in the matter being remitted back to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for fresh consideration.2. Allegations of non-compliance by the successful resolution applicant:The Resolution Professional filed an application stating that the resolution plan had not been fully implemented by the successful resolution applicant, causing delays and non-payment issues. The Adjudicating Authority found that the successful resolution applicant had only paid the first installment and had not proceeded with further payments or plan implementation.3. Direction to reconsider the resolution plan and forfeiture of amounts:The Adjudicating Authority directed the CoC to reconsider the entire resolution plan due to non-compliance issues. Additionally, the amounts already paid by the successful resolution applicant were ordered to be forfeited, and the CoC was instructed to review the matter afresh.4. Challenge to the legality of the Adjudicating Authority's order:The Appellants challenged the legality of the Adjudicating Authority's order, arguing that it exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the CoC to reconsider an already approved resolution plan. They contended that the order to forfeit the substantial amounts already paid was illegal.5. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority post-approval of resolution plan:The Appellants argued that after the approval of the resolution plan, the CoC and Resolution Professional became functus officio, and the Adjudicating Authority could not direct reconsideration of the plan. They highlighted that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides for liquidation in case of plan failure, and the CoC cannot reconsider an approved plan.Conclusion:The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order, citing legal infirmities and lack of a reasoned explanation. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the importance of natural justice and providing opportunities for all parties to present their arguments. The appeal was allowed without costs, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass reasoned orders in line with the law and the spirit of the Code.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 