LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Overview
April, 2024

www.lawstreetindia.com 1 | Page
LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

Supreme Court
In Deccan Value Investors L.P. & Anr. vs. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr. [LSI-281-SC-
2024(NDEL)]
SC ruled that the IBC doesn’t allow the resolution applicant to unilaterally amend/modify, or withdraw
the resolution plan post approval by the CoC, reiterated Ebix Singapore dictum. Stating that in Ebix,
the argument w.r.t. Sec. 31(1) proviso was rejected on several counts, including absence of legislative
mandate to direct unwilling Committee of Creditors to re-negotiate or agree to withdrawal of the
resolution plan at the behest of the resolution applicant, SC elucidated that “The scrutiny by the
adjudicating authority for grant of approval in terms of Section 31(1), read with other provisions of the
Code, is limited and restricted.”.
In IBBI vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu & Ors. [LSI-352-SC-2024(NDEL)]
SC quashed Bombay HC Single Judge’s judgment allowing the petition filed by ex -Directors
(Respondents) of SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) challenging Additional Sessions
Judge’s order that had directed issuance of process against the Respondents on acco unt of IBBI’s
complaint for non-compliance with OTS terms u/s 236 of IBC (trial of offences by Special Court), ruled
that “…the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge will have
jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code. However, since the…single judge of the High Court
has not considered the merits of the matter, the matter is remitted to the…single judge of the High Court
for considering the petition of the respondents afresh on merits.”. Highlighting that u/s 236(1), reference
is “offences under this Code shall be tried by the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of
the Companies Act, 2013”, SC observed that the reference is not general but specific, and is only to the
fact that the offences under the Code shall be tried by the Special Court established under Chapter
XXVIII of the Companies Act.
In Global Credit Capital Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [LSI-379-SC-2024(NDEL)]
SC dismissed appeals filed by Global Credit Capital Ltd. (Appellant) impugning NCLAT orders,
whereby Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Company/Respondent) was held to be a ‘Financial Creditor’ of
Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) within the meaning of Sec. 5(7) of the IBC and not
an ‘Operational Creditor’, held that, “…the view taken by the NCLAT under the impugned judgments
and orders is correct and will have to be upheld. Therefore, we confirm the impugned judgments and
dismiss the appeals. The Resolution Professional shall continue with the CIRP process in accordance
with the impugned judgments.”. Elaborating on major provisions of the IBC viz.- definition of ‘debt’,
‘claim’, ‘financial debt’ and ‘operational debt’, and relying upon a catena of landmark judgments such
as Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure, Phoenix ARC and Anuj Jain (JIL’s IRP), SC elucidated that,
“Where one party owes a debt to another and when the creditor is claiming under a written
agreement/arrangement providing for rendering 'service', the debt is an operational debt only if the
claim subject matter of the debt has some connection or correlation with the ‘service’ subject matter of
the transaction. The written document cannot be taken for its face value. Therefore, it is ne cessary to
determine the real nature of the transaction on a plain reading of the agreements.”.
In Skil Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Sudip Bhattacharya. [LSI-374-SC-2024(NDEL)]
SC dismissed petition filed by Skil Infrastructure Ltd. (a Corporate Guarantor), ruled that a Corporate
Guarantor’s claim against the new promoters/ management will not make them a financial creditor
against the corporate debtor itself .

www.lawstreetindia.com 2 | Page
LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

High Courts
In Amit Gupta vs. IBBI & Anr. [LSI-301-HC-2024(BOM)]
Bombay HC disposed of a writ petition filed by an IP (Petitioner) challenging an IBBI Circular aimed
at clarifying the usage of certain terms contained in Reg. 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process)
Regulations (LP Regulations), remarked that “Should the IBBI be desirous of amending the LP
Regulations, it would have to comply with the Law-Making Regulations and not resort to the back-door
route of issuing circulars. On the other hand, should the IBBI be desirous of issuing only clarificatory
guidelines, it is free to do so in terms of Section 196(1)(t), as noticed above.”. Stating that regulators,
particularly those exercising power to issue registrations and licenses to professionals in practice, must
be given a reasonable play in the joints to explain their regulatory framework and throw greater light on
the standards expected in the law, HC opined that, towards this end, the power to issue guidelines is an
important one and must not be interfered with lightly, and added that that any judicial intervention into
such exercise of power should be sensitive to the need for providing regulatory clarity to society even
while being mindful to look for whether substantive stipulations of law are masquerading as clarificatory
guidelines.
In Rajan Garg vs. Chief Executive Officer and Ors. [LSI-307-HC-2024(BOM)]
Bombay HC dismissed a Resolution Professional’s petition seeking an order for staying the acquisition
process under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995, of a slum land being developed by the Corporate
Debtor (Truly Creative Developers Pvt. Ltd.) inasmuch as a moratorium u/s 14 of IBC was in place
against Corporate Debtor and hence the State Govt. could not proceed with the acquisition of land in
question. Framing a pertinent issue, viz. - “can it ever be suggested that the provisions of IBC, and
specifically the CIRP, meant to protect the assets of a potentially insolvent corporate debtor, can prevail
over the considerations of a welfare statute and the concerns of individual citizens for whom that welfare
statute is intended, such as the Slum Act?”, Court highlighted that, “…the provisions of the IBC are not
meant to defeat slum redevelopment and similar or allied statutes. To hold otherwise would simply be
unthinkable.”.
In Patna Highway Projects Ltd vs State of Bihar [LSI-386-HC-2024(PTN)]
Patna HC, in restraining Revenue from proceeding to recover GST demand against the Petitioner
company, post approval of a resolution plan (RP) under the IBC, 2016, h eld that, once State has not
approached the RP or NCLT for inclusion of their demand in RP as a secured creditor, “demands raised
by the assessment orders…stands extinguished subject only to the contingency of a liquidation
proceeding if the resolution plan fails”. Following SC decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra, CoC of Essar
Steel India Ltd. and Ruchi Soya, HC ruled out applicability of Rainbow Papers case, emphasizing that,
in present case, Revenue didn’t contest the RP before NCLT, and NCLAT, nor did they approach the
Resolution Professional within time or issue the assessment orders or initiate recovery before the RP
was approved.

NCLAT
In Pankaj Mehta vs. Ansal Hi-tech Township Ltd [LSI-286-NCLAT-2024(CHE)]
NCLAT dismissed appeal filed by the Authorised Representative (Appellant / Applicant) of the allottees
who had preferred insolvency application against Ansal Hi-tech Township Ltd. (Corporate Debtor)
before NCLT, which had been rejected on the ground that allottees belong to different project. NCLAT
remarked that the Appellant and other Petitioners who had filed the Sec. 7 application are from
numerous different projects, and they have not established their case as `creditors of a class’, concerning

www.lawstreetindia.com 3 | Page
LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

any `particular project’, registered with the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, with a view
to fulfil the requirement of 10% or 100 allottees, as per Sec. 7(1).
In CL Sharma vs. Bank of Maharashtra & Anr. [LSI-295-NCLAT-2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT dismissed appeals filed by Corporate Debtor’s Personal Guarantors (Appellant) against the
NCLT order appointing RP and directing him to submit a Report in an application filed by Bank of
Maharashtra u/s 95, sub-section (1) of IBC against the Appellants, remarked that “…if there is any
invalidity or shortcomings while appointing the RP, Section 98 is there for the debtor or creditor, which
provides for replacement of the RP.”. W.r.t. Appellants’ contention that the RP while submitting a
Report u/s 99, is not supposed to submit any Report as to whether application is barred by time or not,
NCLAT explained that “Whether the debt owed by the debtor to the creditor, is time barred, is also a
related question and the RP while recommending for admission or rejection of the Application, is not
in any manner precluded from giving his recommendation on the basis of mate rials, which are on the
record of the Application.”.
In State Bank of India vs. Anish Niranjan Nanavaty & Anr. [LSI-296-NCLAT-2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT rejected State Bank of India’s (Appellant/Financial Creditor) application praying for
condonation of 18 days delay in filing an appeal against the Resolution Professional (RP/Respondent)
of Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) held that, “…limitation commences
when order is pronounced and only the time taken by the Court to provide certified copy shall be
excluded. The commencement of limitation thus is not suspended till the order is uploaded in the website
of the NCLT.”. NCLAT perused the rules and regulations of NCLT and outlined the questions as to
whether the Appellant has filed any application for obtaining certified copy and whether the Appellant
was entitled to file an application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order and observed that
the Appellant having not filed any application for obtaining certified copy of the order, there is no
occasion for extending the benefit of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act.
In Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala vs. Awaita Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. [LSI-303-NCLAT-
2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT ruled that the essential ingredients of financial debt in the context of IBC consist of disbursal
accompanied by consideration for time value of money, and noting that in the case at hand, as the money
advanced by Respondent 1 to the Corporate Debtor (Tarapur Textile Park Ltd.) was towards working
capital needs, and for boosting its economic prospects, it was a disbursal against consideration for time
value of money. Tribunal stated that “As long as the lender visualises an element of profit and
enhancement of economic prospect in return for the money advanced for certain time period, the loan
in question entails time value of money and acquires the colour of commercial borrowing which is
clearly borne out from the facts of the present case. It has all the trappings of financial debt and squarely
falls within the purview of Section 5(8) of IBC.”.
In Gupta Textiles vs. Darshan Patel & Ors. [LSI-326-NCLAT-2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT modified the NCLT order, in an appeal filed by the Operational Creditor (Appellant), approving
the resolution plan submitted by Goblin India Ltd. jointly with Khandwala Finstock Pvt. Ltd.
(Successful Resolution Applicants), remarked that, “The order of Adjudicating Authority…is modified
to the extent of approving the distribution to the Operational Creditors, including the Appellant. Rest
of the order is affirmed.”. Stating that the extent of judicial review of Resolution Plan approved by the
CoC in its commercial wisdom is very limited, NCLAT relied on the SC ruling in CoC of Essar Steel
India Ltd. wherein it was laid down that commercial wisdom of the CoC has to be given paramount
importance and limited jurisdiction provided to interfere in the approval of the Plan by the Adjudicating
Authority or the Appellate Tribunal, i.e., only when the Plan is not in compliance with statutory
provisions of Section 30, sub-section (2).

www.lawstreetindia.com 4 | Page
LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

In Ashok Kumar Gulla vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [LSI-328-NCLAT-2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT dismissed appeal filed by the Liquidator (Appellant) of SRS Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) being
aggrieved by the NCLT order which, inter alia dismissed the Appellant’s prayer for fixing a particular
amount as remuneration of the Liquidator. Noting that the crux of the case is whether any remuneration
is to be paid to the Liquidator for the services being rendered by him, when the assets of the corporate
debtor are under attachment and cannot be auctioned, NCLAT observed that while the liquidation
process was going on, the regulations relating to Liquidator’s fees underwent changes, and stated that,
“Regulation 39D(2) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 gave entitlement to the Liquidator to be paid fee
as a percentage of amount realized and distributed and covered only cases where fee was not decided
by the CoC. In the instant case no fee was decided by the CoC and therefore Sub-Regulation (2), as it
existed then, shall be applicable.”.
In Girish Nalavade vs. Bhrugesh Amin & Ors. [LSI-339-NCLAT-2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT dismissed an appeal filed by a disgruntled solitary homebuyer (Appellant) of Modella Textile
Industries Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) challenging the NCLT order rejecting Appellant’s (representing 77
Homebuyers as a class of creditor) application seeking rejection of the CoC approved resolution plan
filed by the RP. Holding that “The intent, objective and purpose of IBC being time bound resolution of
insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, it clearly does not provide any leeway or scope to dissatisfied
individual Homebuyers in a minority like the present Appellant to override the commercial wisdom of
the majority in the CoC.”, NCLAT asserted that any indulgence shown would tantamount to derailing
the resolution process and setting the clock back which we cannot countenance .
In Vistra ITCL India Ltd. & Ors. vs. IIFL Home Finance Ltd. & Ors. [LSI-349-NCLAT-
2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT dismissed appeals filed by the Financial Creditors (Appellants) of Satra Properties India Ltd.
(SPIL/Corporate Debtor), being aggrieved by Mumbai NCLT’s orders wherein, IIFL Home Finance
Ltd.’s (Respondent) admission of claim as Financial Creditor in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was
directed to be admitted as a Financial Debt. Noting that after filing of the Sec. 7 insolvency petition
against SPIL, a Consent Term was entered between the Financial Creditors and SPIL, NCLAT observed
that Clause 4 of the Consent Term refers to an Amendment Agreement for amending certain terms of
the financing documents and it clearly provides for repayment of the outstanding as per repayment
schedule, and moreover, Clause 6 of the Consent Term also contemplated that in the event, the financing
documents as amended are not complied with, other party shall be free to pursue all recourse and actions
available under applicable law.
In Mr. Bhavit Sheth vs Mr. Madan Bajrang Lal Vaishnawa [LSI-350-NCLAT-2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT quashed NCLT order admitting insolvency petition against Dream 11 owner Sporta
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., remarked, “The Corporate Debtor is freed from CIRP.”, at the same time,
granted the operational creditor, liberty to file a fresh application for default committed by Corporate
Debtor subsequent to the period prescribed u/s 10A of IBC. At the outset, delving into Sec. 10A, as well
as the impugned NCLT order, NCLAT observed that despite having noted the provisions of Sec. 10A,
NCLT proceeded to admit the Sec. 9 application, and relying on SC judgment in Ramesh Kymal Vs.
Siemens Gamesa, Tribunal remarked that “Adjudicating Authority committed an error in proceeding to
admit Section 9 application without adverting to the bar under Section 10A.”.
In Noil Christuraj vs. State Bank of India & Anr. [LSI-362-NCLAT-2024(CHE)]
NCLAT affirmed the NCLT order admitting an insolvency application of the Financial Creditor, by
holding that it does not find any merit in the contention of the Corporate Debtor (Fossil Logistics Pvt.
Ltd. / Corporate Guarantor) that CIRP cannot be initiated against the Guarantor, if CIRP against the

www.lawstreetindia.com 5 | Page
LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

Principal Borrower was already initiated by the same Financial Creditor for the same set of claim /
default. NCLAT clarified that there is no embargo under IBC on initiating simultaneous / independent
proceedings u/s 7, by a Financial Creditor against the Principal Borrower and the Corporate Debtor /
Guarantor.
In Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors. [LSI-367-NCLAT-2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT allowed appeal filed by the Suspended Director (Appellant) of Envirant Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(Corporate Debtor) against its other Directors (Respondents) and set aside the NCLT order which
rejected the Appellant’s application inter alia pleading that the reply filed on behalf of the Corporate
Debtor by the Respondents has concealed various important facts, h eld that, “The pleading in the
application by the Appellant that FIR has been registered against the Respondents under different
sections of IPC, was a relevant fact to be noticed by the Adjudicating Authority on the date when the
impugned order was passed…the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in rejecting the I.A. filed
by the Appellant.”. Noting that vide a subsequent order, NCLT admitted Sec. 7 insolvency application
against the Corporate Debtor filed by Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. (Financial Creditor), NCLAT observed
that, “…when the reply filed by Respondents did not claim any board resolution for filing reply, we fail
to see how the application filed by the Appellant can be rejected on the ground that there is no board
resolution supporting filing of the application.”.
In Pooja Mehra vs. Nilesh Sharma, RP of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [LSI-394-NCLAT-
2024(NDEL)]
NCLAT dismissed appeal filed by a homebuyer (Appellant) of a residential flat in a project developed
by Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) against the NCLT order rejecting Appellant’s application
seeking to condone delay in filing the claim of Rs. 50 lakh and direct the RP (Respondent) to admit her
belated claim in the category of ‘Financial Creditor’, remarked that, “Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India & Ors., has held that the aim of the Code is to economically
rehabilitate the Corporate Debtor and for that purpose, the timelines protect the Corporate Debtor's
assets from further dilution. To achieve the said purpose, it is essential that creditors are barred from
raising belated claims against the Successfully Resolution Applicant who is trying to resuscitate the
Corporate Debtor.”.

NCLT
In Shirley Mathew vs. Shri. Mahesh. [LSI-272-NCLT-2024(BAN)]
NCLT rejected application filed by the Resolution Professional (Applicant) of Maylari Agro Products
Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) inter alia seeking that the Corporate Debtor's former Directors (Respondents)
be directed to to pay certain sums u/s 44(1)(d) of IBC in respect o f the benefits received by them in
cases of preferential transactions as contribution to the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Tribunal
observed that the Respondents are ‘related party’ u/s 5(24) of the Code and they failed to dispute the
Bank Statements based on which the Auditors have prepared the Transaction Audit Report, hence, the
amount referred falls under the ambit of Sec. 43 of IBC for preferential transactions, furthermore, the
payments made to them are not explained by the Management of the Corporate Debtor, thus, they are
liable to pay the amounts in respect of the benefits received from the Corporate Debtor to the RP.
In Jossy Steephen Kattur vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [LSI-285-NCLT-2024(KOC)]
NCLT allowed application filed by the RP (Applicant) of Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industries
(Corporate Debtor) seeking to reclassify the claims pertaining to arbitration awards from 'other creditors
to ‘Financial Creditors'. Highlighting that judicial precedents show that characterization of the payment
under a decree or arbitral award resulting from the adjudication of a creditor's claim hinges on the

www.lawstreetindia.com 6 | Page
LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

underlying nature of that claim, NCLT stated that whether the liability originates from an arbitral award
or a court decree, it would be classified as either financial or operational debt, contingent upon the
intrinsic nature of the underlying claim as determined by the arbitral or court proceedings .
In Hrithik Roshan vs. Chhaya Gupta, RP of JSM Devcons Pvt Ltd. [LSI-337-NCLT-2024(IND)]
NCLT dismissed an application filed by Hrithik Roshan (Applicant) for issuing direction to the RP
(Respondent) of JSM Devcons Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) to consider his claim as a Homebuyer /
Financial Creditor in a class (Real Estate Allottee) rather than as an Unsecured Financial Creditor, in
the CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor on a Sec. 7 application by Motel Rehans Pvt. Ltd. NCLT
observed that the Applicant had filed its claim correctly as Unsecured Financial Creditor in Form -C,
and the erstwhile IRP had taken a correct view thereon, and had accepted the claim of the Applicant as
an “Unsecured Financial Creditor”, as also the Applicant had participated in the CoC meetings in the
capacity of “Unsecured Financial Creditors” and had voted in favour of the Resolution Plan.
Highlighting that it is only after that the Applicant filed its claim before the present RP in the Form-CA
which is meant for filing a claim by the Financial Creditor in a class i.e. for Homebuyers, NCLT opined
that the RP has made no error in rejecting its claim for re-categorising as a homebuyer.
In Anish Niranjan Nanavaty, RP vs. Reliance Capital Ltd. [LSI-377-NCLT-2024(MUM)]
NCLT dismissed application filed by the RP (Applicant) of Reliance Communications Ltd. (Corporate
Debtor) inter alia seeking to declare the repayment of a Rs. 1797.98 crore unsecured loan made by the
Corporate Debtor to the Reliance Capital Ltd. (Respondent) as a preferential transaction u/s 43 of the
Code, set it aside as being null and void and further direct the Respondent to refund the same amount
to the Corporate Debtor. NCLT examined Sec. 43 of IBC which deals with preferential transactions at
relevant time and relies on a catena of judgments to state that, “...the transaction in question satisfies
the basic ingredients contained in Sec. 43(2) & (4). Hence, the transaction in question, to the extent it
falls within the look back period, is a preferential transaction. However, Sec. 43(3) of the Code provides
certain exceptions, whereby even a transaction falling within the mischief of Sec. 43(2) read with Sec.
43(4) of the Code are excluded from the scope of Sec. 43 calling for orders u/s 44 of the Code. ”.
In S.R. Data Services Pvt Ltd. vs. LQI Infra Ltd. [LSI-376-NCLT-2024(KOL)]
NCLT rejected Sec. 7 insolvency petition filed by the Financial Creditor against LQI Infra Ltd.,
(Corporate Debtor, fiber cable telecom co.) held that, “In the absence of the default being proven and
the observations made in relation to the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor, we are of the view
that the Company Petition appears to have been filed in collusion and the Code is being used as an
escape mechanism for reaping the fruits of Moratorium, which is in the teeth of Sec. 65 of the Code.”.
NCLT observed that in the bank statements of the Financial Creditor, there are disbursements made to
the Corporate Debtor but simultaneously, the amounts disbursed by the Financial Creditor can be
correlated to amounts being deposited on the same day by a shareholder o f the Corporate Debtor and
opined that, “An identical pattern has been followed. This prima facie leads us to believe that the
transactions are nothing but a round tripping of money with an eye to push the Corporate Debtor to
insolvency by setting a stage. As was expected, the Corporate Debtor has chosen neither to file its reply
nor contest any of the charges of the Petitioner.”.
In K. Amutha vs. Resolution Professional of Ambojini Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. [LSI-346-NCLT-
2024(CHE)]
NCLT allowed application filed by an apartment-buyer (Applicant) seeking directions to the Resolution
Professional (Respondent) of Ambojini Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., (Corporate Debtor), to admit her
entire claim of Rs. 35 lakh after the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP. NCLT noted that in the
booking form, it is recorded that the Applicant had paid Rs. 20 lakh as booking advance, however, the
same transaction is not reflected in the books of the Corporate Debtor, and the name of the Applicant is

www.lawstreetindia.com 7 | Page
LSI IBC Round-Up – April, 2024

also not in the affidavit submitted by erstwhile management before the Bombay HC, further, added that
Regulation 8A of the IBBI (Insolvency Process of Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 regarding
claims by creditors in a class prescribes that the existence of the debt may be proved on the basis of
other relevant documents including receipt of payment made.

IBBI
In Venkata Sivakumar, Insolvency Professional. [LSI-316-IBBI-2024(NDEL)]
IBBI suspended the registration of an Insolvency Professional (IP) for a period of 2 years, on finding
that the IP violated several provisions of the Code as well as the Liquidation and IP Regulations and
Code of Conduct, by sharing valuation reports with prospective scheme proponent for Corporate Debtor,
and remarked that, “The Insolvency professionals are the fulcrum of the insolvency eco-system. Keeping
one-self aware of the provisions of the Code and regulations made thereunder and applying them in
letter and spirit is the primary responsibility of the IRP/RP/ or Liquidator as the case may be.”.
Observing that the IP aimed to keep the issue of contravention under SCN sub judice to avoid any
findings by the Disciplinary Committee (DC), IBBI stated that there is no denying in the fact that the
IP shared valuation reports with prospective applicants for scheme of compromises of The Jeypore
Sugar Company Limited (Corporate Debtor / CD) during liquidation, and that he accepts the same and
has shared the email forwarding the valuation reports with them along with non-disclosure agreements
signed with them for ensuring confidentiality.

CESTAT
In Moser Baer India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
CESTAT, Allahabad abated Moser Baer India’s appeal against excise duty confirmation, owing to
initiation of Liquidation proceedings by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and non -filing
of Application by Official Liquidator under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, for
continuance of appellate proceedings, also cites extinguishment of statutory dues to Government. Noted
that during initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Resolution Professional had
advised not to take any recovery action against the Assessee herein as the same shall be in violation of
provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and appeal came to be filed against
Order-in-Appeal confirming duty demand along with interest.
**********************************************************************************************************

About LawStreetIndia

LawStreetIndia (LSI) is your one stop guide to everything you need in the arena of Company law, IBC,
Securities Law (SEBI/SAT), FEMA, IP laws & Competition Law. The one common thread running
across most of these laws - they are all new/revamped and LSI promises to be your partner in navigating
through the complexities of these legislations and bringing you upto speed with the latest developments!
To subscribe / activate your free trial, please send an e-mail to sales@taxsutra.com or get in touch with
Nischay Katakwar (President - Enterprise Sales, Taxsutra)) at +91 7769811611.

www.lawstreetindia.com 8 | Page