In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal is considering the claims made by the Appellants regarding their ownership of rice stock at the premises of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal acknowledges the concerns raised by the Respondents/Liquidator regarding the credibility and acceptability of the report provided by the rice expert. The report was prepared hastily and contains discrepancies, making it unreliable as conclusive evidence for the Appellants' claims.
The Appellate Tribunal also noted that the Appellants failed to provide supporting evidence such as invoices, tax documentation, financial statements, stock registers, and material receipt notes. These documents are crucial for substantiating their claims against the Corporate Debtor. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlights the contradictory statements made by Mr. Himanshu Miglani, an ex-employee who signed most of the acknowledgments claimed by the Appellants. Additionally, it is mentioned that the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) is investigating a case involving the Corporate Debtor and claims of Rs. 1,700 crores by several banks. The stock claimed by the Appellants has not been proven to belong to them.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the NCLT because the Appellants failed to provide credible and reliable evidence to substantiate their claims. The Tribunal emphasized that claims must be based on solid documentary evidence and comply with the law, and indirect or circumstantial evidence cannot be accepted. Therefore, without sufficient evidence, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Consent terms in a settlement agreement can revive a withdrawn Company Petition in case of default, even without a revival provision in the withdrawal order.

If the bank refuses to extend further the Bank Guarantees and Secured Overdraft Facilities, the borrower will have to clear their dues against these credit facilities. Any default on these dues is covered under Section 3(12) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The present Appeal has been filed against the Order of the Adjudicating Authority, by which Order an Application filed by the Union Bank of India under Section 7 of the Code has been admitted by the Adjudicating Authority.
In the present case, the learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order contended that Application filed by the Union Bank of India was barred by time hence could not have been admitted. He submitted that there was no specific pleading within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act with regard to OTS Proposal dated 16.09.2019 which has been relied by the Adjudicating Authority for holding it within time. It is further submitted that OTS Proposal which was submitted by the Appellant was not an unconditional proposal hence there was no clear acknowledgement.
The Appellate Authority observed that Section 7 Application has been filed by the Financial Creditor, in which Part-IV of the Application contains “particulars of financial debt” giving details of all transactions and the OTS Proposal which has been relied on by the Adjudicating Authority has also been specifically mentioned in the Application and the Copy of the said OTS Letter was also filed along with Application. It was a clear acknowledgement by the Corporate Debtor.
In the present case the submission which has been pressed by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that there was no specific pleading that Appellant is claiming benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act for extension of limitation.
The Appellate Tribunal noted that when the facts regarding OTS Proposal received from the Corporate Debtor within three years from the date, account were declared NPA was specifically pleaded and OTS Proposal brought on record, the pleadings are not wanting in any manner. Mere non-mention of Section 18 of the Limitation Act is inconsequential when the relevant facts and materials were pleaded and brought on record. Any OTS Proposal which was submitted if it contains acknowledgement, limitation will be extended by virtue of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
The second submission which has been pressed by Learned counsel for the Appellant is that there is no clear acknowledgement in the OTS Proposal.
The Appellate Authority noted that the above proposal made on behalf of Appellant is clear acknowledgement of the debt of the Bank. Reliance by Learned Counsel for the Appellant on the last words “subject to mutual understanding” is about the interest since the Appellant was requesting for not charging the interest hence such observation in no manner affect the acknowledgement of the debt which is contained in the main part of the OTS.
The Appellate Tribunal reiterated that the OTS Proposal cannot be held to be wanting in any manner as acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the Application was not barred by time. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in admitting Section 7 Application.
The Appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court upheld the interim order/arrangement of the NCLAT until the appeals are concluded, considering the tenability of "project-wise resolution".

Appeal-I, the Appellant has stated that the Transaction Auditor and the Resolution Professional have incorrectly classified the said refund of security deposit as repayment of unsecured loan, which is to the detriment of the Appellant, and which has been held as preferential transaction, and by the Impugned Order, this transaction has been reversed and the Appellant has been directed to return the money paid by the corporate debtor to the Appellant. As to the facts in Appeal-II, the Appellants have claimed that the Appellant booked a studio apartment with the corporate debtor on 8.1.2015 for which Rs. 5,00,000/-was paid as booking amount and this amount was refunded by the corporate debtor on 29.8.2018 to Appellant on account of cancellation of the booking of the studio apartment. The Appellants have also stated that a similar booking amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid by Appellant towards another unit booked with the corporate debtor, which was cancelled and the booking amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was returned to the Appellant on 7.6.2018. The Appellants have further submitted that these refunds, given to them upon cancellation of their units, were transactions made in the regular course of business of the corporate debtor and therefore, they will not qualify as preferential transactions. Since the Impugned Order has classified these two transactions as preferential transactions and ordered the Appellants have been directed to refund the said amounts to the corporate debtor, the appellants who are aggrieved by the said order have filed Appeal-II.
In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the transactions were not part of the common flow of business, which should have been evidenced by any letter or communication requesting cancellation of booking of the unit and through a request by the appellants for refund of the booking amount which is not the case in the instant matter. The Appellate Authority noted these transactions are preferential transactions with the support to the contention of the RP that ‘ordinary course of business’ should mean common flow of transactions.
The Appellate Authority were of the clear opinion that the Impugned Order did not suffer from any infirmity regarding reversion of the amounts repaid to the Appellants back into the account of the corporate debtor, and the RP has, therefore, been correctly directed to recover the said amounts from the Appellants.
The Appeals were dismissed.

In the present case, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 09.07.2020 in I.A. No. 62 of 2020 was the subject matter of appeal before the NCLAT. By the impugned judgment and order the NCLAT has dismissed the said appeal by observing that the appellant no.1’s claim in purported capacity of ‘Secured Financial Creditor’ has been rejected way back in the year 2017 and the decision in this regard has not been called in question and therefore it is not open for the appellants to raise the same issue in 2020 by filing I.A. No. 62 of 2020. The NCLAT has also observed that the appellants have not lent any money to the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor did not owe any financial debt to the appellants except the pledge of shares was to be executed. Therefore, the NCLT observed that the appellants not having advanced any money to the Corporate Debtor as a financial debt would not be coming within the purview of financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor. Making the above observations, the NCLAT has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the NCLAT dismissing the appeal and confirming the appeal passed by the Revenue dismissing I.A. No. 62 of 2020, the original applicants – M/s. Vistra and others have preferred the present appeal.
Supreme Court held that the Appellant would be treated as a secured creditor who would be entitled to all rights and obligations as applicable to a secured creditor in terms of Sections 52 and 53 of the Code, and in accordance with the pledge agreement.

The Commercial wisdom is not a matter of rhetoric but is denoting a well-considered decision by the protagonist of CIRP i.e., CoC.

These civil appeals were directed against the common order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Appellate Tribunal has reversed the order, as passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai; and while rejecting the resolution plan in question, has remanded the matter to the committee of creditors with directions to the resolution professional to proceed from the stage of publication of Form ‘G’, and invite the expression of interest afresh as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
In the present case, CIRP against the corporate debtor got initiated on 05.05.2020, with the NCLT admitting an application moved under Section 7 of the Code by one of its financial creditors, Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited. During proceedings, after various rounds of CoC meetings, ultimately, the resolution plan in question was approved with 87.39% majority of voting share on 22.01.2021. However, the CoC recommended certain changes to be made in the resolution plan. After incorporating the changes as suggested by CoC, an application was moved before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) under Section 30(6) of IBC for approval of the resolution plan. During the proceedings before NCLT, several objections were raised by various financial creditors, other resolution applicants and by the promoter and erstwhile director of corporate debtor against the resolution plan. The promoter also stated his grievance about want of consideration of his settlement proposal in terms of Section 12-A of the Code. However, the NCLT dismissed all the objections and approved the resolution plan declaring it binding on the corporate debtor and other stakeholders by the common order dated 15.07.2021.
Challenging approval of the resolution plan, several appeals were preferred before the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which were decided in the impugned common judgment and order dated 17.02.2022. The Appellate Tribunal, while upholding several of the objections against the process of consideration of the resolution plan as also the eligibility of the successful resolution applicant, allowed all the appeals; set aside the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2021; rejected the resolution plan so approved by the NCLT; declared the resolution applicant ineligible in terms of Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and disqualified in terms of Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013; and issued directions to the resolution professional to proceed with CIRP from the stage of publication of Form ‘G’ while inviting EOI afresh as per the CIRP Regulations. The Appellate Tribunal also issued directions to the resolution professional to place the settlement proposal of promoter and erstwhile director of the corporate debtor for consideration before the CoC; and if such a proposal was approved with 90% voting share of CoC, to initiate the proceeding for withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12-A of the Code read with Regulation 30-A of the CIRP Regulations. The Appellate Tribunal also directed that the claim of the related party financial/operational creditors be not discriminated against from that of the unrelated financial/operational creditors.
In the present bunch of appeals the aforesaid order of NCLAT dated 17.02.2022 was challenged before by the resolution applicant as also by the resolution professional on several counts, which could be broadly summarised: First, that Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulations does not mandate sharing of the valuation report to the CoC and instead mandates only sharing of liquidation value. Second, that the non-core assets were not significant in value and the valuation was communicated to and agreed upon by the members of the CoC on 15.12.2020. Third, that non-publication of Form G on the designated website was a mere procedural irregularity which did not prejudice the interests of any of the parties. Fourth, that the commercial wisdom of CoC was not justiciable and once the CoC had approved the resolution plan by the requisite majority, there was very limited scope of interference by the Courts. Fifth, that the Appellate Tribunal has overstepped its jurisdiction by declaring the resolution applicant ineligible under Section 88 of the Trusts Act and disqualified under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act. Sixth, that the claims of related party creditors cannot be treated at par with the unrelated creditors. And seventh, that Section 12-A IBC application of the promoter was merely a dilatory tactic and that he was not entitled to file any such application. These and other grounds raised in these appeals have been duly contested by the respondents with their respective stands and positions in these cases. This apart, some of the financial creditors have also moved the applications for impleadment and have placed their respective viewpoints for consideration.
The disapproval of the resolution plan in question by the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 is not to be interfered with but, not for all the reasons which weighed with the Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court observed, the reasons and findings of the Appellate Tribunal in relation to the valuation process and alleged non-compliance of some of the procedural provisions as also the observations against increase of fees of resolution professional are not to be approved. Similarly, the Appellate Tribunal has not been right in holding the resolution applicant ineligible to submit a resolution plan with reference to Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. The disapproval by the Appellate Tribunal, with reference to the settlement offer of promoter in terms of Section 12A of the Code, and its purported non-consideration is also not approved by the Supreme Court and such findings of the Appellate Tribunal were set aside. Similarly, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in applying the principles of non-discrimination in relation to the related party. However, the other findings and the consequential order passed by the Appellate Tribunal were approved.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2022 in relation to the issues covered by points for determination A, B, C1, D2, E and F is not approved and findings of the Appellate Tribunal in that regard are set aside. However, rejection of the resolution plan is maintained in view of the answers to points C2, C3 and D1.
The Supreme Court bench were clearly of the view that even while respecting the commercial wisdom of CoC, in the present case, the resolution plan in question could not have been approved by the Adjudicating Authority for two major reasons: one, for the ineligibility of the resolution applicant; and second, for not placing of the revised resolution plan in the CoC before seeking approval from the Adjudicating Authority. Of course, on the questions relating to the valuation reports, and want of publication of Form G on the website, The Supreme Court were with the Adjudicating Authority that these aspects were not of material bearing in the process in question and the resolution professional had taken reasonable steps as permissible in law and feasible in the circumstances.
The Supreme Court bench were not inclined to endorse the views of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of related party in the resolution plan as also regarding the settlement offer of the promotor; and the process in that relation cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality.
The SC Bench further noted that so far, the subsequent events concerning invitation of fresh EOIs and approval of the fresh settlement proposal of the promoter by the CoC are concerned, all the relevant aspects are kept open for consideration of the Adjudicating Authority.

As per section 7 of the IB Code, the Adjudicating Authority is required to ascertain the existence of default within 14 days from the date of receipt of the application. Once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied regarding existence of default and that the application is complete and no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority is required to admit the application and is not required to look into any other criteria for the admission of the application. It is nobody’s case to cause delay in admission of CIRP on miscellaneous grounds.
In the present case the Appellate Tribunal noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Appellate Tribunal itself has, held in catena of judgments that there is no scope for judicial interventions and overreach by the Appellate Tribunal to interpret any further, if the existence of due and subsequent default is established.
The Appellate Authority observed that the plea of the Appellant regarding violation of the RBI Guidelines on ‘Priority Sector Landing’ cannot be allowed to affect the fate of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code. It is for the Appellant to seek necessary remedies, if any and if required against the Respondent No. 1 for violation of Master Circular of RBI regarding Priority Sector Landing at appropriate forum in accordance with the law.
As regards the date of default, it has been observed that the Respondent No. 1 has been writing from time to time to the Appellant to clear the dues to avoid his account becoming NPA. The date of default has been clearly stipulated as 31.12.2013 and the date of NPA has been indicated as 31.03.2014 which has been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority after examining the supplementary affidavit of the Respondent No. 1. It is also noted that the Corporate Debtor has acknowledged the debt time and again at various places including 6 consecutive Balance- Sheets.
The Appellate Authority noted that as regards pending suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for adjudication, it is settled law that such pending adjudication does not come in a way of deciding application filed under Section 7 of the Code.
The Appellate Tribunal was also conscious of the fact that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a self-contained ‘Code’ and its proceedings are summary in nature. In view of forgoing detailed examination of various facts and law, the Appellate Tribunal did not find any error in the impugned order.
The Appeal was dismissed.

Appellant Company is an operational creditor of the corporate debtor and in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant is aggrieved by the Impugned Order of the Adjudicating Authority which approves the resolution plan filed by Respondents 3 & 4 that discriminates between the operational creditors who are similarly placed, and also discriminates between the operational creditors and the financial creditors in respect of payments under the approved resolution plan. The two issues that arose for consideration in the present Appeal were:—(i) Whether the Appellant can raise the issue of admission of reduced amount of his claim, at a much belated stage, after the approval of resolution plan? And (ii) Whether the approval of the resolution plan can be challenged on the basis of discrimination between the financial creditors and operational creditors based on payments to be made to them under the approved resolution plan?
The Appellate Authority observed that the Appellant had been informed without any ambiguity and with clarity that since the power plant was closed w.e.f. 30.06.2020, only an amount of Rs. 1,13,63,918/- was admitted against his submitted claim. It is thus clear that after the RP had finally informed the Appellant vide email dated 02.09.2020 that only an amount of Rs.1,13,63,918/- was admitted, the Appellant did not take any further action about either preferring an appeal before the Adjudicating Authority on the matter of admission of reduced claim, nor took up the matter with the RP, and it is therefore logical and safe to presume that he accepted the admission of his claim at Rs. 1,13,63,918/-. It is well settled opinion that once the resolution plan has been approved vide the Impugned Order the issue of any claim could not be agitated or brought up at this late stage.
The Appellate Authority further noted that through email dated 15.10.2021, the RP informed the Appellant that NCLT, Ahmedabad had approved the resolution plan for the corporate debtor vide its order dated 07.10.2021 and his admitted claim has received ‘NIL’ allocation as per the approved resolution plan. Regarding the allocation of payments to various classes of creditors, the Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor was assessed as Rs. 34,22,46,797/-, whereas the debt of the financial creditors itself is Rs. 593,68,95,085/-. After taking into account the waterfall mechanism envisaged under Section 53 of the IBC, the entire amount of Rs. 34,22,46,797 /- would be exhausted in the payment of the CIRP costs, workmen dues, and dues owed to the secured financial creditors which are much in excess of Rs. 34,22,46,797 /- and no amount would remain for payment to the operational creditors as required by section 30(2)(b) and the waterfall mechanism of section 53.
In light of the above, the Appellate Tribunal didn’t see any reason why the resolution plan approved by the Impugned Order should be interfered with, and therefore, dismissed the appeal.