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>Petitioner to Apply to NCLT for CIRP Consolidation; NCLT Must Decide Within Two Weeks of Application.</h1> <h3>M/s Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Versus Union Of India, KSK Mahanadi Power Limited, Committee Of Creditors KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited, KSK Water Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Committee Of Creditors Of KSK Water Infrastructures Private Limited, Raigarh Champa Rail Infrastructure Private Limited, Committee Of Creditors Of Raigarh Champa Rail Infrastructure Private Limited and Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India, Delhi</h3> M/s Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Versus Union Of India, KSK Mahanadi Power Limited, Committee Of Creditors KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited, ... ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issue considered was whether the consolidation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for KSK Mahanadi Private Limited, KSK Water Infrastructures Private Limited, and Raigarh Champa Rail Infrastructure Private Limited should be mandated by the court. Additionally, the court considered whether the actions of the committees of creditors and resolution professionals were in compliance with their fiduciary duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court also examined whether a framework for group insolvencies should be developed to prevent similar issues in the future.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISConsolidation of CIRP- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court examined the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the jurisdictional limits of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) concerning the consolidation of CIRP for different corporate debtors. The inherent jurisdiction as per Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules was also considered.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the NCLT had previously rejected the application for consolidation, citing a potential chaotic situation that could arise from consolidating assets and liabilities of different companies. The NCLT suggested that the committees of creditors (CoC) could voluntarily sit together to find a common resolution applicant, but it could not mandate consolidation.- Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the financial creditor, Punjab National Bank (now Prudent ARC Limited), had filed an application for consolidation, which was rejected by the NCLT. The NCLAT appeal was withdrawn, and no further applications were filed by the petitioner.- Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal framework to conclude that the petitioner had not taken the necessary legal steps to challenge the withdrawal of the appeal or to file an application for consolidation with the NCLT or NCLAT.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but emphasized the procedural requirements and the lack of action on the petitioner's part to pursue available legal remedies.- Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should file an appropriate application with the NCLT to seek relief and that the NCLT would then examine and decide on the matter within two weeks of receiving the application.Fiduciary Duties and Development of Group Insolvency Framework- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered the fiduciary duties imposed on the committees of creditors and resolution professionals under the IBC. It also touched upon the need for a potential framework for handling group insolvencies.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court did not make a direct ruling on the fiduciary duties or the need for a group insolvency framework but acknowledged the petitioner's concerns. The court suggested that these issues could be raised in the appropriate forum.- Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the absence of any formal investigation or findings regarding the alleged failure of fiduciary duties by the committees of creditors.- Application of Law to Facts: The court found that without a formal application or investigation, it could not make a determination on these issues within the writ petition.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court recognized the petitioner's arguments but reiterated the necessity for procedural compliance and the appropriate forum for addressing these issues.- Conclusions: The court deferred any decision on these matters, suggesting that the petitioner pursue them through proper legal channels.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The court held that the petitioner should file an application with the NCLT to address the consolidation of CIRP, and the NCLT should decide on this within two weeks of receiving the application. The court stated, 'The petitioner is relegated to file an appropriate application in CP(IB) No.492/7/HDB/2019 on the file of the NCLT and raise all grounds available under law.'- The court emphasized the procedural requirements for challenging the withdrawal of the appeal and the necessity for the petitioner to take appropriate legal steps to seek relief.- The court deferred any decision on the fiduciary duties and the development of a group insolvency framework, indicating that these issues should be raised in the appropriate forum.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
