NCLAT Delhi reverses NCLT, admitting insolvency application as debt and default were established through NeSL records and Corporate Debtor’s own admission.
NCLAT upholds NCLT’s rejection of Indian Bank’s insolvency plea against a personal guarantor who was also the resolution applicant, citing the approval of a new guarantee under the corporate debtor’s resolution plan.
The Corporate Debtor failed to maintain financial discipline following which the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA which was also reflected in Part-IV of the Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor.
NCLAT Delhi held that status quo order by forcing corporate debtor to restore liquidator amounts to stalling the voluntary liquidation process. Thus, adjudicating authority cannot restore status quo under voluntary liquidation process.
Adjudicating authority also in its order dated 03.12.2024, while considering the application filed by the RP for approval of the resolution plan has noticed all relevant facts, including the financial outlay and four contingencies as part of the resolution plan.
The Appellant submitted that, despite repeated follow-ups, the Respondent has failed to pay the outstanding balance. The Appellant issued a notice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking recovery of the said dues.
NCLAT Delhi held that the objection that petitioner has not amended the petition cannot mean that on the basis of leave granted to serve amended petition Respondent – Union of India can add relief without filing any application and without obtaining order of the Court.
NCLAT Delhi held that delay in filing restoration appeal can be condoned in terms of rule 48 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 since sufficient cause made out. Accordingly, matter restored back to the Adjudicating Authority.
NCLAT Delhi held that delay of 147 days in refiling of an appeal against National Financial Reporting Authority [NFRA] order without any satisfying reasons is not condonable. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and delay not condoned.
NCLAT Delhi held that by approval of resolution plan, the personal guarantee is not ipso facto discharged. Thus, the Indian Bank which is dissenting Financial Creditor cannot proceed to file an application under Section 95 against the respondent.
