Latest news with #Insolvency&BankruptcyCode
Time of India
24-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
No impact on Rel Infra & Rel Power, say cos
NEW DELHI: Reliance Infra and Reliance Power distanced themselves from ED action against Reliance Communications saying the entities had no business or financial linkages with the company facing money laundering probe. In identical statements, they also said Anil Ambani was not on their boards and actions by ED have "no bearing or impact on the governance, management, or operations" of the listed entities. "The media reports appear to pertain to allegations concerning transactions of Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM) or Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) which are over 10 years old... RCOM is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 since over six years," R-Infra and R-Power said in stock exchange filings.
India Today
21-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
Supreme Court dismisses Byju's and BCCI pleas against insolvency withdrawal
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company.A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) verdict on April thoughts on the verdict, the counsel representing Byju's founders expressed disappointment. An official statement issued by Byju's read, "The termination would have benefitted millions of students who are being deprived of BYJU'S learning system, and thousands of employees."It added, "We are examining the implications of today's order and will decide the future course of action after due consideration. BYJU'S Founders will not stop their efforts to terminate the company's bankruptcy and remain confident that eventually justice will be found through the courts."The BCCI and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which on February 10 directed to place their settlement offer before the new Committee of Creditors (CoC), in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes USD 1.2 billion, is a Chennai bench comprising Justices Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of the CoC, hence as the provisions of Section 12 A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, it requires the approval of the lender's BCCI and Raveendran contended that since the application under Section 12A was filed before the constitution of the CoC, the provisions of Section 12A coupled with Regulation 30A(1)(a) shall apply and not Regulation 30A(1)(b).Section 12 A of the IBC prescribes an exit route from insolvency. It mandates that NCLT may allow the withdrawal of insolvency initiated by any financial or operational creditor under Sections 7,9 or section 10, based on an application made with the approval of 90 per cent voting share of the 30A(1)(a) deals with the provision of filing Section 12 A proceedings through the interim resolution profession before formation of CoC, whereas 30A(1)(b) deals with provision of filing after formation of BCCI and Byju's contending Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju' rejecting the plea, NCLAT said, "Form FA, admittedly having been filed on November 14, 2024, is post (formation of) CoC.""If the application under Section 12A is filed under Regulation 30A(1)(a) before the constitution of the CoC, then Section 12A, which mandates the approval of such an application for withdrawal by a 90 per cent voting share of the CoC, shall not apply, but if the application is filed after the constitution of the CoC then the provisions of Section 12A shall apply with full force," said CIRP against Byju's was initiated on July 16, 2024 by NCLAT admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An IRP was also appointed by the NCLT in this a settlement arrived between the parties and Raveendran approached appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024 after approving dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Trust, a financial creditor, also filed a separate petition before NCLT seeking resolution of its debt of USD 984.3 million (approximately Rs 8,200 crore).advertisementThe apex court on October 23, 2024, set aside the NCLAT order staying the CIRP against Think & Learn, which owns edtech brand Byju's and asked BCCI to approach NCLT for the BCCI submitted Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on August 16, 2024, it had instructed the IRP to file it only after the resolution of an appeal pending before the Supreme contended before NCLAT there was a delay on the part of the IRP in filing the withdrawal NCLAT, however, rejected the plea.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC junks BCCI, Riju Raveendran's plea on settlement for Byju's
The Supreme Court has rejected appeals from the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran. They sought to halt insolvency proceedings against Byju's. The court upheld the NCLAT verdict. This relates to a dispute over settlement offers and the role of the Committee of Creditors. The case involves a USD 1.2 billion debt. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company.A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) verdict on April and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal , which on February 10 directed to place their settlement offer before the new Committee of Creditors (CoC), in which US-based Glas Trust , the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes USD 1.2 billion, is a member.A two-member Chennai bench of the NCLAT comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of CoC, hence as the provisions of Section 12 A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, it requires the approval of the lender's BCCI and Raveendran contended since the application under Section 12A was filed before the constitution of the CoC, the provisions of Section 12A coupled with Regulation 30A(1)(a) shall apply and not Regulation 30A(1)(b).Section 12 A of IBC prescribes an exit route from insolvency. It mandates that NCLT may allow the withdrawal of insolvency initiated by any financial or operational creditor under Sections 7,9 or section 10, based on an application made with the approval of 90 per cent voting share of the 30A(1)(a) deals with the provision of filing Section 12 A proceedings through the interim resolution profession before formation of CoC whereas 30A(1)(b) deals with provision of filing after formation of BCCI and Byju's contended Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju' rejecting the plea NCLAT said, "Form FA, admittedly having been filed on November 14, 2024, is post (formation of) CoC.""If the application under Section 12A is filed under Regulation 30A(1)(a) before the constitution of CoC then Section 12A which mandates the approval of such application for withdrawal by 90 per cent voting share of the CoC shall not apply but if the application is filed after the constitution of the CoC then the provisions of Section 12A shall apply with full force," said against Byju's was initiated on July 16, 2024 by NCLAT admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An IRP was appointed also by the NCLT in this a settlement was arrived between the parties and Raveendran approached appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024 after approving dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Trust, a financial creditor, also filed a separate petition before NCLT seeking resolution of its debt of USD 984.3 million (approximately Rs 8,200 crore).The apex court on October 23, 2024, set aside the NCLAT order staying the CIRP against Think & Learn, which owns edtech brand Byju's and asked BCCI to approach NCLT for the BCCI submitted Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on August 16, 2024, it had instructed the IRP to file it only after the resolution of an appeal pending before the Supreme contended before NCLAT there was a delay on the part of the IRP in filing the withdrawal NCLAT, however, rejected the plea.
Time of India
14-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Banks can flag fraud despite IBC shield: NCLT
Mumbai: The National Company Law Tribunal has held that a moratorium under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) doesn't prevent a bank from identifying and classifying a fraudulent account , calling such an action purely the bank's administrative decision. The tribunal's observation is likely to have wider implications in many similar cases where the lenders are seeking to declare the corporate debtor's account 'fraudulent' while the company is still undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Dismissing an application filed by the resolution professional (RP) of Rolta India , the NCLT's Mumbai bench observed that CIRP and fraud identification are separate processes with different objectives. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Do you have a mouse? Desert Order Undo "The role of this tribunal is to ensure the integrity of the CIRP and address any fraudulent activities within that context, not to directly overturn a bank's independent classification of an account, as banks have the discretion to classify accounts as fraud based on their internal policies and regulatory guidelines," the tribunal said in its order of July 8. Live Events The ruling came on an application filed by Rolta India's RP, which had sought to set aside Bank of India 's move to classify the company's account as fraud. In March, Bank of India had classified a ₹616 crore non-performing asset (NPA) related to Rolta India as fraud. Jyoti A Singh, founder of law firm AJA Legal, said the purpose of the moratorium under IBC is to prohibit all actions, including the proceedings, which would in any manner affect the insolvency resolution of the company. "Classification of a corporate debtor as a fraud account would in no way affect the CIRP," said Singh. "In fact, having provisions like Section 66(2), which mandates the RP to make an application during CIRP for instances of fraudulent trading or wrongful trading, supports the view of the tribunal." The company has admitted liabilities of over ₹14,074 crore. Kamal Singh-promoted Rolta is a defence-focused software company that was admitted to the bankruptcy process in January 2023. Himanshu Vidhani, partner at law firm Chandhiok and Mahajan, said the order distinguishes administrative decisions of banking institutions from measures that would affect the assets of the corporate debtor. "The tribunal has also acknowledged the dual regulatory space-corporate insolvency under the IBC and fraud classification under the Reserve Bank of India's 2016 Master Directions on Frauds," said Vidhani. On a different note, Pallavi Pratap, managing partner at New Delhi-based law firm Pratap & Co, said (with this order), clearly, the litigation strategy for many stakeholders has to be changed now. "Tribunals will refuse to interfere in the bank's administrative decisions anymore," said Pratap. "This will expose the corporate debtor and promoters to the risk of criminal investigation during CIRP. This will also create a higher risk for the resolution applicant as they will have to inherit criminal investigation and subsequent litigation and costs."
Time of India
13-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Hindustan National Glass: NCLAT decides against change of RP, directs NCLT to decide on bids
The insolvency appellate tribunal NCLAT has set aside NCLT 's direction to change the resolution professional of debt-ridden Hindusthan National Glass Industries (HNG) and asked it to take a decision on the bids as per the Supreme Court 's directions. A three-member NCLAT bench gave a go-ahead to the Kolkata Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to decide on the approval of bids for Hindusthan National Glass Industries in accordance with the directions passed by the Supreme Court. "The adjudicating authority (NCLT) may proceed to hear and decide the plan approval application, as per the directions of Supreme Court dated May 16, 2025," NCLAT said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Moose Approaches Girl At Bus Stop In Dhaka - Watch What Happens Happy in Shape Undo Over the resolution professional, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) said there was "no majority opinion on Point No.3, i.e. replacement of the RP". In this matter, the Supreme Court, in a judgement on May 16, 2025 directed the lenders' body, the CoC (committee of creditors) of Hindusthan National Glass to consider for approval of the resolution plan of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd within two weeks. Live Events The apex court has also directed NCLT to complete the CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process) of Hindusthan National Glass, within six weeks from May 16. CIRP against Hindusthan National Glass & Industries commenced on October 10, 2021 and Girish Siriram Juneja was appointed the RP. He had issued expression of interest (EoI) inviting resolution plans, based on which bids submitted by AGI Greenpac was approved by the CoC with 98 per cent vote shares on October 27, 2022. However, Soneko Marketing, an operational creditor of the company approached NCLT, praying for removal of the RP. Meanwhile, NCLT vide order dated April 28, 2023 approved the resolution plan of AGI Greenpac. This was challenged before the NCLAT by several parties, including Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd, which was also a resolution applicant. The NCLAT on September 18, 2023 dismissed all petitions against NCLT order finalising AGI Greenpac bid. Aggrieved by this, Soneko Marketing and Independent Sugar Corporation approached the Supreme Court, which vide its judgment on January 29, 2025, set aside the NCLT order as well as the order of appellate tribunal approving the resolution plan of AGI Greenpac. The Supreme Court held that as prior approval by the fair trade regulator CCI as required by Section 31 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, has not been obtained by AGI Greenpac, hence its bid could not have been approved. The apex court also issued directions to reconsider the bid of Independent Sugar Corporation or any other resolution plans that possessed the requisite CCI approval as on October 28, 2022. Later, in consequence of the order of the Supreme Court dated January 29, 2025, the resolution plan of Independent Sugar Corporation was approved on February 4, 2025. Meanwhile, on March 7, 2025, Soneko Marketing, the operational creditor filed an Intervention Petition seeking intervention as well as removal of the RP. However, on the plea, a two-member bench of the tribunal differed and on April 30, 2025, two separate orders were passed by judicial member and technical member. Following this, a reference was made to the NCLT president, who referred it to a third member, who on June 10, 2025 gave its opinion. Aggrieved by these orders, appels were filed before the appellate tribunal NCLAT. Meanwhile, a review petition was also filed before the Supreme Court for reviewing the judgment dated January 29, 2025. Passing an order on this the apex court on May 16, 2025 directed the CoC to consider for approval of resolution plan of Independent Sugar Corporation within two weeks. Meanwhile, the NCLAT also passed orders on Jul 8, 2025 over the removal of RP, setting aside an earlier order of NCLT in this regard.
