A resolution applicant could not unilaterally alter its financial proposal through a last minute addendum after completion of the challenge process and commencement of voting under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
NCLAT held that the Corporate Debtor’s email offering payment subject to acceptance of a consequence sheet amounted to acknowledgment of operational debt. The Tribunal found that the dispute raised regarding quality and delays was not a genuine pre-existing dispute under Section 9 of the IBC.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld findings that the arrangement allowing the Successful Resolution Applicant to receive 50% of PUFE recoveries was contrary to the IBC framework. The recoveries were held to constitute assets of the Corporate Debtor.
The case concerned an appeal against rejection of an insolvency petition involving alleged unpaid operational dues. The tribunal found that most invoices belonged to a separate proprietorship and not the corporate debtor. It held that the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the IBC was not met, leading to dismissal.
The Tribunal held that appeals filed beyond the statutory 45-day limit cannot be entertained. It ruled that delay exceeding the condonable period is not permissible under Section 61.
The Tribunal held that insolvency proceedings cannot be avoided when total debt is higher than the arbitral claim. It ruled that undisputed default justified admission under Section 7.
The tribunal ruled that state VAT provisions do not prevail over the Insolvency Code. Tax dues were rightly treated as operational debt under the resolution plan.
Insolvency plea was quashed as insolvency applications filed during the subsistence of an interim moratorium were void ab initio even if the original proceedings were later withdrawn.
The tribunal held that mere suspicion or possibility of fraud without supporting evidence cannot justify action under Section 66 of the IBC. The ruling underscores the need for concrete proof in alleging fraudulent conduct.
The tribunal ruled that a claim submitted four days before the CoC meeting was ineligible for consideration. It confirmed that the RP acted correctly in rejecting claims filed beyond the permissible window.
