The appeal was dismissed as it became moot after the approval of the Resolution Plan, and the Adjudicating Authority's order allowing documents to be filed in a sealed cover was upheld.

In the case at hand, an appeal was filed against an order dated June 5, 2023, issued by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, referred to as "The Adjudicating Authority." The appeal pertained to the decision made in I.A. No. 1756 of 2023.

The Adjudicating Authority had initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a company named M/s Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd. based on an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant filed I.A. No. 5981 of 2022, requesting various reliefs, including access to documents and calculations related to the claim of a financial creditor and a redetermination of the claim amount.

The Adjudicating Authority, in an order dated February 14, 2023, noted that there were no provisions in the Code for shareholders to request such documents from the Resolution Professional. However, it directed the Resolution Professional to provide the requested documents within seven days in the interest of justice.
The Appellant appealed this order, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on March 16, 2023, stating that the Appellant could file an appropriate application with the Adjudicating Authority for such directions. Following this, the Resolution Professional filed I.A. No. 1756 of 2023, seeking permission to file additional documents as per the Adjudicating Authority's earlier order.

The Adjudicating Authority, in its order dated June 5, 2023, allowed the Resolution Professional to file the documents as directed in the previous order in a sealed cover without e-filing. It also stated that objections raised by shareholders regarding the Resolution Plan and related documents would be considered before plan approval. The Appellant, dissatisfied with the June 5, 2023 order, filed this appeal.

During the hearing, the Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing documents to be filed in a sealed cover, citing that there was no provision in the Code for keeping documents confidential from shareholders. The Appellant referenced relevant judgments from the Supreme Court to support their argument.

The Resolution Professional argued that the appeal had become irrelevant since the Adjudicating Authority had already approved the Resolution Plan on August 1, 2023, and the issues raised by the Appellant were no longer pertinent.

The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) considered both arguments and noted that the Code and regulations did not require all information collected by the Resolution Professional to be shared with shareholders. It emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority had the power to call for information or evidence as needed, and it deemed the issues raised by the Appellant as academic, given the approval of the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the June 5, 2023 order.

In summary, the appeal was dismissed as it was deemed moot following the approval of the Resolution Plan, and the Adjudicating Authority's order allowing documents to be filed in a sealed cover was upheld.

Administrative and quasi-judicial authorities, such as a Liquidator in an insolvency process, must provide transparent and well-reasoned decisions, recording objective grounds for actions affecting the rights of parties, and that the requirement to provide reasons for rejecting bids applied both prospectively and retrospectively.

In a Supreme Court judgment related to Application (I.A. No.14220 of 2022), the Court allowed intervention in a case involving an appeal under Section 62 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was against an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The order had allowed Punjab National Bank (Respondent No. 1) to appeal against an earlier order by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, related to the corporate insolvency resolution process of M/s. Amrit Feeds Limited.

The case began with an insolvency application filed against M/s. Amrit Feeds Limited, and the NCLT admitted the application, initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process. Subsequently, the Liquidator scheduled an auction for the corporate debtor's assets.

The appellant, Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited, entered the picture by submitting a bid, matching the reserve price, and winning the auction. However, the Liquidator cancelled the auction, leading to legal disputes.

Punjab National Bank (Respondent No. 1) appealed the NCLT’s decision, and the Appellate Tribunal sided with them, setting aside the earlier order and ordering a fresh auction.

The Supreme Court heard arguments from all parties, including an intervenor, Mr. Harish Bagla, who raised concerns about the relationship between the appellant and the corporate debtor. The Court considered various legal provisions and precedents.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for transparent and well-reasoned decisions by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities. It discussed the powers and duties of the Liquidator in the insolvency process, highlighting the importance of recording reasons for their decisions.

The Court clarified that the requirement to provide reasons for rejecting the highest bid applied both prospectively and retrospectively and emphasized the importance of objective grounds for rejecting bids. It also addressed the issue of a 'related party' to the corporate debtor and eligibility under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the cancellation of the auction lacked proper reasoning, and the appellant was eligible to participate in the auction. The Court's judgment provided valuable insights into legal provisions and principles of natural justice.

The 1st Respondent qualified as a Financial Creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the interest could be added to the principal amount, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In the present NCLAT judgment, the Suspended Director of 'M/s. Bhrighu Infra Pvt. Ltd.' appealed against the Impugned Order dated 09/03/2022, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority,' National Company Law Tribunal, Bench–I, Hyderabad, which had admitted a Section 7 Petition filed by Mr. Vemuri Ravikumar, a Financial Creditor, against the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellant argued that the Corporate Debtor was engaged in real estate development, and the 1st Respondent had entered into agreements to purchase and develop certain plots. A dispute arose regarding the mortgaging of some plots by HMDA. The Appellant claimed that the 1st Respondent was entitled to a lesser amount than what was being sought.

The Appellant also contended that the 1st Respondent was a speculative investor and not a genuine homebuyer. They argued that the interest claimed by the 1st Respondent was arbitrary and contrary to the sale agreements.

The key issues in the appeal were whether the 1st Respondent qualified as a Financial Creditor and whether the interest could be added to the principal amount in the Section 7 Petition.

The NCLAT determined that the 1st Respondent did qualify as a Financial Creditor and that the amount paid by the Allottee was a Financial Debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, based on relevant legal precedents. They also found that the interest could be added to the principal amount.

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the admission of the Section 7 Petition. Liquidation proceedings had already commenced against the Corporate Debtor. No costs were awarded, and a pending application was closed.

The breach of a settlement agreement, when it relates to the mode of payment for an underlying operational debt, does not render a Section 9 Application for insolvency proceedings as not maintainable.

In the present NCLAT judgment, an Operational Creditor filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) dated 12.01.2023. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant, stating that it was not maintainable.

The case involved a Work Order/Agreement between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, 'Jasmine Buildmart Private Limited.' RA Bills were raised by the Operational Creditor between 04.11.2011 to February 2016. When payment was not made despite reminders, a demand notice under Section 8 was issued. A Section 9 Application seeking the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was filed. During this process, a Settlement Agreement was reached between the parties, where the Corporate Debtor admitted liability to pay Rs. 19.81 Crores. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement, leading to the filing of a fresh Section 9 Application. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 9 Application, stating that the breach of the Settlement Agreement did not qualify as an operational debt.

In the appeal, the Operational Creditor argued that the debt arose from RA Bills due to the work awarded by the Corporate Debtor. They relied on a previous judgment in a similar case, Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited v. Logix Infratech Private Limited, REED 2020 NCLAT Del 09567, where it was established that the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the parties was related to the mode and manner of payment, and the failure to make payment did not absolve the Corporate Debtor from its debt and default.

The Respondent, on the other hand, supported the Adjudicating Authority's decision, claiming that the Settlement Agreement breach did not constitute an operational debt.

After considering the arguments, the NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in dismissing the Section 9 Application. It emphasized that the debt arose from the RA Bills for work done by the Operational Creditor, and the Settlement Agreement was only a mode of payment. The NCLAT also distinguished the case from Amrit Kumar Agrawal v. Tempo Appliances Private Limited, REED 2020 NCLAT Del 11557, stating that it was not applicable in this context. Additionally, the NCLAT cited a judgment, "Trafigura India Private Limited v. TDT Copper Limited, REED 2020 NCLAT Del 09566" which supported the Operational Creditor's position.

The NCLAT concluded that the filing of a claim in the CIRP of 'Venta Realtech Pvt. Ltd.' did not affect the maintainability of the Section 9 Application. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Adjudicating Authority's order was set aside. The Section 9 Application filed by the Operational Creditor was to be revived and proceeded with according to the law.

The NCLAT's set aside the approved Resolution Plan due to allowed consolidation but refrained from addressing specific objections and aspects of the Resolution Plan's validity.

In the NCLAT judgment, the appellants' legal representatives strongly argued that their objections were not addressed by the Adjudicating Authority. These objections included claims of violations of Section 31(4) of the Code, breach of a statutory undertaking to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, concerns about prejudicing public interest, and alleged haste in convening the CoC Meeting alongside the Mediator's Report.

Senior Counsel Mr. Abhijeet Sinha contended that the Successful Resolution Applicant didn't obtain mandatory approval from the Competition Commission of India before plan approval, and some creditors weren't treated as 'Financial Creditors' due to delayed consideration of their applications.

Mr. V. Prakash, for 'L&T Infra Investment Partners,' argued about claim withdrawal due to legal constraints.

Mr. T.K. Bhaskar highlighted appellants' objections, asserting that they were erroneously unaddressed by the Adjudicating Authority due to rejection of consolidation.

Respondents' Counsels and Ms. Ranjana Roy, for the Successful Resolution Applicant, strongly supported the Adjudicating Authority's plan approval.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) stated that since consolidation was permitted, the approved Resolution Plan is set aside, allowing the Resolution Applicant to submit a consolidated plan for CoC's consideration. The NCLAT observed that the IBC's time-bound nature prompted a swift process. The NCLAT didn't rule on Competition Act approval, Section 30(2)(e) violations, Section 61(3) process, or stakeholder interests. The judgment in related appeals permitted consolidation and set aside only the Resolution Plan, leaving other contentions open. As a result, the appealed orders were set aside, and pending applications were closed.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal set aside the order admitting an insolvency application due to incorrect observations about the Corporate Debtor's absence, as the debtor had already paid the debt in question, clarifying that related claims and proceedings could be pursued separately.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) considered an appeal against the order dated December 16, 2022, issued by the Adjudicating Authority, which admitted an application filed by Indian Overseas Bank (Financial Creditor) against M/s Utopian Sugars Limited (Corporate Debtor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The application sought the resolution of an aggregate amount of Rs. 23,16,19,975, comprising a principal amount of Rs. 17,81,96,000 and interest of Rs. 5,34,23,975. The Adjudicating Authority had declared a moratorium and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The proceedings began with a notice issued on October 11, 2022, where the Corporate Debtor's absence was erroneously recorded. Subsequent orders were passed on November 7, 2022, and November 21, 2022, where the Corporate Debtor was absent, and proceedings continued. The Adjudicating Authority, in the impugned order dated December 16, 2022, held that the Corporate Debtor had failed to appear despite multiple opportunities.

The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) found discrepancies in the Adjudicating Authority's observations and the actual record. It highlighted that the Corporate Debtor's absence was erroneously recorded on multiple occasions despite notices being issued. The Financial Creditor had filed an affidavit of service for the Corporate Debtor on November 18, 2022. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the observations about the Corporate Debtor's repeated absence were incorrect.

The NCLAT noted that while it could remand the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration, the Corporate Debtor had already paid the entire amount mentioned in the application. Hence, there was no debt in default remaining for resolution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal also clarified that the claims of an intervenor and the Financial Creditor's separate legal proceedings related to the KCC account could be pursued independently before the respective authorities. The observations in this case would not affect those proceedings.

The NCLAT set aside the order admitting a Section 9 application due to the Adjudicating Authority's failure to consider subsequent events and directed the case to be reconsidered, while allowing the appellants to present their arguments and discharge the Resolution Professional's role.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) heard arguments from the appellant's counsel, the operational creditor's counsel, and the resolution professional's counsel in relation to an appeal against an order dated September 16, 2022. The original order, issued by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-V), had admitted a Section 9 application filed by the operational creditor.

The operational creditor had submitted a Section 9 application asserting that they were owed dues as a contractor appointed by the Corporate Debtor for construction work. The Adjudicating Authority had issued notice on this application, but the Corporate Debtor neither responded nor contested the matter. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority found the debt and default valid, admitting the Section 9 application and appointing an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The appeal was lodged by the Flat Buyer Welfare Associations, representing flat buyers from four towers: Flat Buyer Welfare Association, Blue Solitaire, Tower C; Flat Buyers Welfare Association Solitaire, Tower D; Tower E, California Country Buyers Association, Sector 80, Faridabad; and Flat Buyers Welfare Association, Gemini Groove Duplex, REGD Sector 80, Faridabad.

The appellants argued that the Corporate Debtor failed to complete construction, leading to complaints filed with the HRERA Authority. An order under Section 8 was subsequently issued on March 15, 2022, allowing the appellants to take over the projects and complete them. The appellants asserted that they had completed the towers as per the HRERA Authority's order and were residing in some of the completed units.

The appellants claimed that the Adjudicating Authority was unaware of these developments, including the Section 8 order, and consequently admitted the Section 9 application without considering the subsequent events. They argued that, per the Section 8 order, they had taken on the role of the Corporate Debtor and should have been given a chance to be heard before initiating insolvency proceedings. They also contended that they shouldn't be held responsible for past debts.

The operational creditor's counsel countered, asserting that the operational dues remained unpaid and that the Adjudicating Authority had rightly admitted the Section 9 application.

After considering the arguments and examining the record, the NCLAT found that the Section 9 application had been filed in 2021 and the Corporate Debtor did not respond or contest the proceedings despite notice. The NCLAT noted the order of the HRERA Authority, which directed the appellants to take over the projects, and stated that the appellants had effectively become promoters of the project for the towers they took over.

The NCLAT determined that the Adjudicating Authority had not considered these subsequent events and had admitted the Section 9 application without taking them into account. As a result, the NCLAT set aside the impugned order, reviving the Section 9 application before the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration. The appellants were allowed to file their reply in the matter. The Resolution Professional's role was also discharged, and the appeal was allowed in accordance with the above findings.

Transactions involving the transfer of funds and shares from the corporate debtor to the appellant for personal benefit constituted fraudulent actions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The NCLAT judgment pertains to an appeal filed by Ashique Ponnamparambath, Suspended Management of the Corporate Debtor, challenging an order issued on June 22, 2023, by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, Kerala). The order was issued in response to I.A. (IBC) 183/KOB/2022 in IBA No. 37/KOB/2020 under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

In addition, IA No. 849 of 2023 in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) 275 of 2023 was filed to seek condonation of a 13-day delay, which was eventually approved based on the reasons provided in the delay application.

The Appellant contested the Impugned Order, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority made erroneous factual and legal conclusions by labeling two transactions as fraudulent. These transactions are detailed in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Impugned Order.

The Appellant's counsel presented arguments stating that the corporate debtor, Koyenco Autos Private Ltd., faced financial distress and decided to invest in Platino Classic Motors Private Limited, a company dealing with BMW cars. They asserted that this investment was not for personal gain but for business revival.

The Appellant further explained that the corporate debtor took a loan of Rs. 5 crores from IDBI Bank to
restart its business. An amount of Rs. 4.5 crores from this loan was transferred to the Appellant's account, which was then invested in Platino Classic Motors. While acknowledging that this investment might have been a poor commercial decision, the Appellant emphasized that it was not fraudulent.

However, the Impugned Order pointed out that the Appellants had admitted that Rs. 4.5 crores were
transferred from the corporate debtor's account to the Appellant's account and then invested in Platino
Classic Motors. This transaction was considered a violation of section 66 of the IBC.

The Impugned Order also highlighted allegations that the Appellants used funds and property of the
corporate debtor for personal benefit. It was alleged that the Appellants obtained a personal loan using the corporate debtor's immovable property as security, and that they transferred shares from another
company to the corporate debtor without proper valuation.

The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the Appellants' actions constituted fraudulent transactions,
which led to the order for them to reimburse the amounts siphoned from the corporate debtor's account
for personal gain.

The NCLAT upheld the Impugned Order, finding that the Appellants' arguments did not hold merit and that the transactions indeed had elements of fraud. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal at the admission stage and ordered the connected pending IA No. 850 of 2023 to be closed.

The appeal was disposed of and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was closed, based on the settlement reached between the parties and the receipt of the settlement amount by the Financial Creditor.

An appeal was filed challenging the order dated 23.05.2023 by the Adjudicating Authority, which admitted a Section 7 Application submitted by 'Drip Capital Inc.' as the respondent. On 02.08.2023, a hearing took place with the appellant's counsel, Financial Creditor's counsel, and Interim Resolution Professional's counsel. The appeal contested the admission of the Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor.

During the appeal, an I.A. No. 3527 of 2023 was filed by the appellant, mentioning an attempt for an amicable settlement with the Financial Creditor. The Financial Creditor agreed to settle the Corporate Debtor's debt for $65,217, subject to full payment. The Financial Creditor stated that upon receiving this amount, they wouldn't object to closing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) sought direction for transmitting the settlement amount from the IRP's account at Punjab National Bank to the Financial Creditor. The NCLAT, considering the case's details and the Financial Creditor's submission, issued the following directions:

1. The IRP would instruct the bank to transfer $65,217 to the Financial Creditor.
2. The Appellant agreed to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs as IRP fee and expenses within a week.
3. An affidavit and certificate were to be filed in the Appeal after the directed amount was transmitted.
4. The IRP was prohibited from continuing the CIRP process in the meantime.
5. The Appeal was scheduled for listing on 29.08.2023.

An affidavit dated 23.08.2023 was filed by the Appellant, presenting a No Dues Certificate issued by the Financial Creditor on 10.08.2023. The Financial Creditor's counsel affirmed receiving the settlement amount, leading to the issuance of the No Dues Certificate. The IRP's counsel confirmed receiving expenses and fees from the Appellant.

Considering the developments, the NCLAT found no reason to prolong the CIRP. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority's order from 23.05.2023 was overturned, and the CIRP was concluded. The appeal was disposed of.

The debt arising from the supply of goods and acknowledged by a 'Del Credere Agent' as payable constitutes an 'Operational Debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and a 'Section 7 Application' filed by a financial creditor based on such debt is deemed 'not Maintainable'.

In the matter of Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 298 of 2021, the dispute revolved around a case between "M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited" and the Appellant "M/s. Madras Chemicals & Polymers". The Appellant was appointed as a 'Del Credere Agent' by the Company to facilitate the sale of its products in the region of Chennai and its suburbs. The crux of the case was centered around the nature of the Appellant's role and whether the debt in question fell within the ambit of 'Operational Debt' as defined under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I & B Code).

The story began with the disbursement of a sum totaling Rs. 93,11,116/- by the Company to the Appellant on various dates. The underlying agreement, referred to as the 'Del Credere Agency Agreement,' contained crucial provisions that shaped the legal relationship between the parties. According to the agreement, the Appellant was authorized to sell the Company's products on a 'principal to principal basis' within Chennai and its suburbs. The Appellant could nominate customers for these products, though this privilege was non-exclusive.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Company committed to supplying its products solely to parties recommended by the Appellant. In return, the Appellant was obliged to submit a security deposit and additional bank guarantees to the Company. Furthermore, the agreement stated that the Appellant would be personally liable for payments and had the authority to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the Company to recover outstanding dues.

The case took a significant turn when the Appellant issued a legal notice to the Respondent (referred to as the 'Corporate Debtor') claiming a sum of Rs. 1,23,14,186.94/- as outstanding debt. The notice highlighted the acknowledgement of the liability by the Corporate Debtor and emphasized the payment terms and associated interest rates.

However, the central issue that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had to grapple with was whether this debt could be classified as 'Operational Debt' under the I & B Code. The Tribunal analyzed the Del Credere Agency Agreement in great detail. It concluded that the debt in question indeed arose from the supply of goods, rendering it an 'Operational Debt' as per Section 5(21) of the I & B Code.

The Appellant, on the other hand, contended that its role as a 'Del Credere Agent' did not align with the Tribunal's characterization of the debt. It argued that it met the criteria of a financial creditor as defined under Section 5(8)(b) and (f) of the I & B Code. The Appellant presented various invoices and debit notes to demonstrate the financial transactions between the parties, asserting that these transactions should be classified as 'Financial Debt' under the I & B Code.

The Appellant also referenced legal precedents, including the decision in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishnan and Another, REED 2022 SC 05561, to bolster its argument that the definition of 'Financial Debt' should be interpreted expansively to encompass liabilities arising from Recovery Certificates.

Ultimately, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) decided that the debt was, in fact, an 'Operational Debt' as it stemmed from the supply of goods and fell within the definition outlined in Section 5(21) of the I & B Code. Consequently, the 'Section 7 Application' filed under the I & B Code was deemed 'not Maintainable' and was dismissed.

In its final judgment, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the NCLT's decision, dismissing the Appellant's appeal. It concluded that the debt was an 'Operational Debt' and, as a result, the 'Section 7 Application' was not maintainable.

The case underscores the importance of understanding the intricate legal relationship between parties, the precise nature of the debt, and the relevant definitions within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which collectively dictate whether a particular case falls within the scope of the Code's provisions.