NCLT approves constitution of new Board to takeover ILFS

Published in Articles - Business Law Written by  0
Rate this item
(0 votes)
NCLT approves constitution of new Board to takeover ILFS
On the lines of Satyam and Maytas, NCLT allows Govt. plea to reconstitute ILFS Board, approves a new 6 member Board to manage the affairs of the company, admits Govt. petition u/S 241 as Co.'s affairs were carried on in a manner prejudicial to public interest ; Mr. Uday Kotak, Mr. Vineet Nair, Mr. G.N. Bajpeyi, Mr. G.C. Chaturvedi, Ms. Malini Shankar and Mr. Nandkishor appointed new Board members; Newly constituted Board to hold meeting by Oct 8 and report to the NCLT, roadmap to resolve issues by next hearing on Oct. 31; Newly constituted board shall elect Chairman themselves.
Read 1085 times

Related items

  • Derides Corporate Debtor’s suspended Director for pressing upon access to confidential documents- IB Code
    NCLT disposes of an application filed by one of the suspended Directors (‘Applicant’) of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’), seeking that the Committee of Creditors’ (‘CoC’) decision of disallowing him from participation in CoC meetings be set aside;
    Takes note of Applicant’s contention that he, being a suspended Director, did not only have the right to participate in the CoC meetings, but also had the right to receive all the documents (including confidential ones and resolution plans) tendered before the CoC, which are pertinent to the CIRP; On perusal of relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) and the Regulations made thereunder, draws out a distinction between ‘Participants’ and ‘Members’ under the Code, and the information (including confidential documents) pertaining to the CoC meetings and insolvency process to be disclosed to them; Rejects Applicant’s contention that since he had already submitted a confidentiality undertaking to the RP, he must be allowed access to all the resolution plans as well as commercial information so as to have a meaningful participation in the CoC meetings; Derides the Applicant by stating that, “if these kind of applications are entertained, it is difficult for the RPs as well as CoC to complete the process within the time lines given under the Code”, distinguishes Applicant’s reliance on NCLAT judgments in “Rajputana Properties and ANG Industries” in this regard: Mumbai NCLT

    1. Sec. 24 of the Code entitles the suspended Board of Directors to receive notice of each meeting of CoC. Reg. 21 of the CIRP Regulations provides for the contents of notice of meeting, and mandates provision of copies of all documents relevant to the matters to be discussed and issues to be voted upon in the CoC meeting, to all the ‘participants’.
    2. Under the Code, “participant” means a person entitled to attend a meeting of the CoC u/s 24 or any other person authorized by the CoC to attend the meeting.
    3. As per Reg. 35, after the receipt of resolution plans, the RP shall provide fair value and liquidation value only to every member of the CoC, on receiving an undertaking from the member to the effect that such member shall maintain confidentiality about these values.
  • Section 29A banning defaulted promoters from bidding in own company, not retrospective
    NCLT Mumbai allows Promoter (‘Resolution Applicant’), also the guarantor of a Corporate Debtor undergoing insolvency, to submit resolution plan, thereby holding the resolution plan to be eligible for due adjudication;

    Notes that the Resolution Professional had invited ‘Expression of Interest’ as per due process of law, pursuant to which only the Promoter had submitted a resolution plan which was approved by a 100% Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) vote; Observes that the petition for initiation of insolvency against Corporate Debtor u/s 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) was admitted on Aug. 24, 2017, whereas the IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 was pronounced on Nov. 23, 2017; States that the moot question in the matter is, when the Resolution Applicant is related to the Promoter Directors of the Corporate Debtor, whether his resolution plan could be entertained/ admitted after introduction of Sec. 29A of the IBC, vide the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2018, which was effective from Nov. 23, 2017 (i.e. when Ordinance, 2017 was passed); Peruses Sec. 29A of IBC, which provides that a “connected person” shall not be eligible to submit a resolution plan, wherein “connected person” means any person who is Promoter/ is in the management of control of the Resolution Applicant; Examines precedents relating to the applicability of an amended legal provision,  and relies on a catena of SC judgments in this regard to state that “a cardinal principle of construction is that that every statute is prima facie prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation“; Cites insolvency proceedings as “continuous proceedings connected like rings in a chain”, appreciates SC’s observation in one of the judgments that “once a game is started in a playground, it is unfair to alter the rule of the game once started, till it finishes. So one must not be allowed to change rules of the game in mid so as to get a desired result”; Thus refers to various provisions under the IBC, including Sec. 5, 7, 9, 10, 31 and 33 to demonstrate that insolvency proceedings entail a continuous process; Lastly records its satisfaction, for granting approval to the resolution plan, thus directs that the moratorium against the Corporate Debtor would henceforth cease to have effect:Mumbai NCLT
  • NCLAT curbs RP's powers, seeks CoC justification for plan approval -Binani Cements
    NCLAT allows interlocutory application filed by Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (‘UltraTech’), directs Resolution Professional (‘RP’) not to take any comment from one or other Resolution Applicant(s), and to ignore such step if already taken;

    UltraTech alleged violation of Appellate Tribunal’s interim order by the RP wherein it was held that it will be open to the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) and the Adjudicating Authority to approve one or other Resolution Plan; Peruses Sec. 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) to opine that a RP is required to examine each resolution plan to confirm whether it inter alia provides for payment of Insolvency Resolution Process costs, payment of Operational Creditors’ debts and management of the affairs of Binani Cements Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’) ; Observes that prima facie, in absence of any information through any source while scrutinizing the resolution plan u/s 30(2), the RP cannot hold or decide as to who is ineligible u/s 29A as no such power is conferred on the RP; States that the RP cannot disclose the resolution plan to any other person, including Resolution Applicant(s), who has submitted the resolution plan; Opines that “the resolution plan submitted by one or other Resolution Applicant being confidential cannot be disclosed to any competitor Resolution Applicant nor any opinion can be taken or objection can be called for from other Resolution Applicants with regard to one or other resolution plan”; Points out that the intention of the legislature is clear that the CoC while approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan should follow such procedure which is transparent; Remarks that “those who will watching the proceeding ..... are not mere spectator but may express their views to the CoC for coming to conclusion in one or other way”; Thus rules that the CoC should record reasons while approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan; Lastly, clarifies that Resolution Applicant is entitled to be present in the meeting of CoC when his resolution plan is being considered and may point out whether one or other person (Resolution Applicant) is ineligible in terms of Sec. 29A or not:
    New Delhi NCLAT
  • Application filed by POA holder on Financial Creditor’s behalf maintainable- NCLT
    NCLAT upholds NCLT order, admitting applications filed by Power of Attorney (‘POA’) holders, on behalf of Financial Creditors u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’), against Corporate Debtor;
    Takes note of Appellant’s (Corporate Debtor’s Director and Shareholder) contention that the application filed by Power of Attorney (‘POA’) holders, on behalf of Financial Creditors was not maintainable on the ground that such POA holders weren’t authorized by the Board of the Financial Creditors; Observes that the Applicants were authorised to file the application vide POAs issued by the Financial Creditors; Relies on Coordinate Bench ruling in Palogix Infrastructure P. Ltd. wherein it was held that “if general authorization is made by ‘Financial Creditor’ in favour of its officers to do needful in legal proceedings, mere use of word ‘Power of Attorney’ while delegating such power will not take away the authority of such officer”; Given that one of the Applicants was authorized by Financial Creditor’s CEO, who in turn was authorized to execute POA in favour of another person, holds that officer delegated with the power, can claim to be the ‘Authorized Representative’ for the purpose of filing application u/s. 7/ 9/ 10 of the Code.
    Another ruling on first principle after rulings on limitation and Advocates notice under  Application to Adjudicating Authorities Rules
    New Delhi NCLAT

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.