SERIAL CASE DATE FACTS DECISION

NO. NAME
1. Guruchara Appellants challenged the order In view of the section 5(21),
n Singh passed by NCLT Delhi where under there is a ‘debt’ due to the
Soni and application preferred by Appellants – appellants and there is default
Kuldeep “operational creditor” has been on part of the respondents-
Kaur Soni rejected in terms of order passed in ‘Corporate Debtor’. However,
Vs. “Sanjiwe Kunwar V AMR the appellants do not come
Unitech Infrastructure” within the meaning of
Ltd. Operational Creditor”
2. Palogix ICICI Bank Ltd., Financial Creditor NCLAT observed that the ‘I&B
Infrastruct (“ICICI”) filed an application under Code’ is a complete Code by itself
ure private section 7 of the code for initiation of and the provision of the Power of
Ltd vs the CIRP against Palogix Infrastructure Attorney Act, 1882 cannot
ICICI override the specific provision of a
Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Debtor
Bank Ltd. statute which requires that a
(“Palogix”). particular act should be done by a
person in the manner as prescribed
there under. NCLAT held that a
‘Power of Attorney Holder’ is not
competent to file an application on
behalf of a ‘Financial Creditor’ or
‘Operational Creditor’ or
‘Corporate Applicant’. NCLAT
held that a power of attorney
holder is not authorised to present
application for CIRP under
sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Code.
It is only authorised representatives,
duly authorised by board resolution,
who are eligible to present the
same.
Thus, only an authorised person
of the Financial
Creditor/Operational Creditor or
Corporate Applicant can make an
application under Section 7, 9
and 10 of the Code. Therefore, a
‘Power of Attorney Holder’ is
not competent to file an
application for CIRP under the
Code on behalf of a ‘Financial
Creditor’ or ‘Operational Creditor’
or ‘Corporate Applicant’

3. S3 The respondent-Brian Lau, a resident The Appellate Tribunal was of

Electrical of Hong Kong preferred an the view that though the
and application under Section 7 of the learned counsel for the
Electronic Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, respondent has produced some
s Pvt. Ltd. 2016 with a prayer to initiate records and communications to
Vs. Brian Corporate Insolvency Resolution show the evidence of ‘Default’
 Lau Process against the appellant- such documents cannot be
'Corporate Debtor'-S3 Electrical and taken into consideration for the
Electronics Private Limited. purpose of initiation for
According to the appellant-Andhra Insolvency Resolution Process
Bank were bankers of Corporate under section 7 of the I&B
Debtor and that there is no default Code and also the order passed
shown in the account. The Andhra by the Adjudicating Authority
Bank is satisfied with the without notice to ‘Corporate
performance of the 'Corporate Debtor’ is in violation of rules
Debtor'. of natural justice and hence
the said order is fit to be set
aside.

4. Mack Soft The Quinn Group of companies is NCLAT laid down the
Tech Pvt. based out of Ireland and has multiple exceptions to the situation in
Ltd Vs. subsidiaries across various which the time period
Quinn geographies. The promoters of the intervening the insolvency
Logistic Quinn Group took loans from the resolution process period can
erstwhile Anglo-Irish Bank (now be excused from the count of
known as The Irish Bank Resolution 270 days. The same are as
Corporation) via Quinn finance and follows:
invested that money in various
countries. Instead of paying back the (1) if the resolution
bank, illegal transactions were process is stayed by the
allegedly undertaken to remove all adjudicating authority,
companies from the hold of the NCLAT or the
Quinn group. IBRC took control of Supreme Court;
Quinn Finance and Quinn Logistics
India due to loan defaults by Quinn (2) in case of lack of
group companies. functioning of a
Mack Soft Tech was created in 2003 resolution professional;
by the Quinn Group as a Special
Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in India. The (3) the period between
Q-City project was funded by Quinn the admission of
Finance vide subscription to insolvency application
Compulsory Convertible debentures and the actual date
of Mack Soft of Rs 143 crore; Quinn from which the
Logistics India by providing inter resolution professional
corporate deposit to Mack Soft of Rs takes charge of the
63 crore. matter;
Quinn Logistics India filed for
insolvency of Mack Soft Tech and (4) when an order is
the petition was admitted by NCLT, reserved by the
Hyderabad Bench, vide order dated adjudicating authority,
11 August 2017. Quinn Finance and NCLAT or the
Quinn Logistics are requesting that Supreme Court;
the shareholding is given back from
Mecon to Mack Soft so that
(5) when the NCLAT
liquidation process is completed. The
sets aside the corporate
amount in question for Quinn
insolvency resolution
Finance is Rs 143.6 crores and Rs
 62.9 crores to Quinn Logistics.
process or when its
decision is reversed by
the Supreme Court.

(6) any other situation

that would justify the
exclusion of a certain
period from the 270
days count.

5. Bharti An Application under section 7 of The Appellate Tribunal held

Defence the IBC was filed against the that the Respondent had
and Appellant before the NCLT enclosed in the Application
Infrastruct Mumbai bench. The Application was under Section 7 in Form 1 the
ure Ltd. admitted and the Order was passed. details of the record of debt and
Vs. This was challenged in this appeal record of default. Hence, since
Edelweiss the application was complete, it
Asset was admitted.
Reconstru
ction Co.
Ltd.
6. Ravi Application u/s 7 is filed by Sunrise Court Observed that:
Mahajan 14 A/S, Denmark a company No record of default is
Vs. incorporated under Danish Law recorded with information
Sunrise against M/S Muskan Power utility or any other evidence of
Denmark Infrastructure Limited (Corporate default has been enclosed as
A/S, Debtor). per IBC.
Denmark NCLT, Chandigarh Bench vide order it is mandatory to comply with
dated 28/07/2017 admitted the subsection 3 of section 7
application and declared moratorium regarding record of default.
and vide order dated 3/08/2017 Section 7(3) read with Rule
appointed Interim Resolution 6/Form 5 of Adjudicating
Professional (IRP) and passed Authority Rules, it is
certain directions. mandatory to provide relevant
Both the orders passed by NCLT, documents and enclose
Chandigarh Bench are under appeal. relevant records of default to
the application.
In case of no enclosure or
information, application shall
be treated as
defective/incomplete and
liable to be rejected.
impugned orders were set
aside and appellant company
was allowed to function.
independently.

7. Nikhil The Nikhil Mehta and Sons claiming NCLAT held that. Nikhil Mehta
Mehta and themselves to be Financial Creditors, and Sons in this case were
 Sons HUF filed application under section 7 of the
Vs. Amr Code before NCLT, Principal Bench,
infrastruct New Delhi.The NCLT, Principal Bench,
ure Ltd. New Delhi rejected the application on the
ground that Nikhil Mehta and Sons in this
case were not financial creditors to AMR
Infrastructure Ltd., Corporate Debtor,
(“AMR Infrastructure”).
The question to be decided by
NCLAT was whether the aforesaid
arrangement was a simple sale transaction
and Nikhil Mehta and Sons were mere
buyers or, whether Nikhil Mehta and
Sons were financial creditors under
section 5 (7) read with section 5(8) of the
Code and therefore allowed to make an
application under section 7 of the
Code.
8. PEC Ltd The Appellant- ‘M/s. PEC Ltd.’ is a
vs. Sree Government of India Enterprise, and
Ramkrish is a ‘Financial Creditor’ of
na Alloys Respondent(s)- ‘Corporate Debtor(s)’
Ltd The case of the Appellant is that the
Respondent- ‘M/s. Sree
Ramakrishna Alloys Limited’
defaulted of Rs.15,16,26,907/- as on
6th March, 2017. Initially, on
demand, the Respondent- ‘M/s. Sree
Ramakrishna Alloys Limited’ issued
three cheques which have been
bounced, three Criminal Complaints
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 has been
instituted against the said
Respondent
The Appellant- ‘M/s. PEC Ltd’ filed
an application under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as
“I&B Code”) for initiation of
‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process’ against ‘M/s. Sree
Ramakrishna Alloys Limited’.
The grievance of the Appellant is that
though the application was preferred
by the Appellant under Section 7 of
the ‘I&B Code’, at the request of
the Respondent- ‘M/s. Sree
Ramakrishna Alloys Limited’
“investors” and had chosen the
“committed return plan”. AMR
Infrastructure in turn agreed upon to
pay monthly committed return to the
investors. Thus, the amount due to
Nikhil Mehta and Sons – buyers
came within the meaning of “debt”
defined under section 3(11) of the
Code. Furthermore, NCLAT noted
from the Annual Return and Form
16-A of the AMR Infrastructure
that they had treated the buyers,
Nikhil Mehta and Sons as
“investors” and borrowed amount
pursuant to sale purchase
agreement for their commercial
purpose was treated at par with
loan in income tax return filed by
AMR Infrastructure.
The Adjudicating Authority
failed to appreciate that the
application(s) preferred by
Appellant under Section 7 of
the ‘I&B Code’ cannot be
treated as an application under
Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’
and the Appellant who is a
‘Financial Creditor’ cannot be
treated as ‘Operational
Creditor’.
Also, if an application is filed
by a person under Section 7 of
the ‘I&B Code’ and in case the
Adjudicating Authority comes
to the conclusion that the
Applicant is not a ‘Financial
Creditor’ in such case the
Adjudicating Authority has
jurisdiction to reject the
application under Section 7 of
the ‘I&B Code’, but the said
Authority cannot treat the
format of the application under
Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’
(Form-1) as an application
under Section 9 of the ‘I&B
Code’ (Form-5), nor can treat
such person an ‘Operational
creditor’, in absence of any
claim made under Section 9 of
 (‘Corporate Debtor’), the application
has been treated to be an application
under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’,
and order of admission has been
passed.
the ‘I&B Code’. Further, as the
informations required to be
given in Form-1 varies from
the informations as required to
be given in Form-5 (As per
Section 9), including
instructions made below the
requisite form(s), no
application filed under Section
7 can be treated as an
application under Section 9 of
the ‘I&B Code.
Both the appeals were allowed.

9. Senthil Appeal against admission of Tribunal observed as follows:

Kumar application for initiation of “In view of provisions of I&B
Karmega ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Code, read with Rules, as
m Vs. Process’ & order of moratorium has referred to above, we hold that
Dolphin been admitted on Grounds - that the an ‘Advocate/Lawyer’ or
Offshore demand notice under sub-Section (1) ‘Chartered Accountant’ or
Enterprise of Section 8 was not issued by the ‘Company Secretary’ in
s Operational Creditor but by an absence of any authority of the
(Mauritius advocate (and not in prescribed forms Board of Directors, and
) (P.) Ltd. 3 or form 4) on behalf of the holding no position with or in
‘Operational Creditor’, which is not relation to the Operational
permissible. Creditor cannot issue any
notice under Section 8 of the
I&B Code, which otherwise is
a ‘lawyer’s notice’ as distinct
from notice to be given by
operational creditor in terms of
section 8 of the I&B Code.”
10. JK Jute An Application under section 9 of the In P.T. Rajan Vs. T.P.M. Sahir
Mills IBC was filed against the Appellant and Ors (2003), the Hon’ble
Company before the NCLT Allahabad bench. Supreme Court observed that it
Limited The OC as well as worker union is a well settled principle of law
Vs requested for grant of status quo, as that where a statutory
Surendra the CD may alienate it’s assets. The functionary is asked to
Trading CD oppose for grant of interim relief perform a statutory duty within
Company as there is no express provision in the time prescribed, the same
Ltd. IBC. would be directory and not
The CD submitted that the AA mandatory. Furthermore, a
became ‘functus officio’ (whose provision in statue which is
duty / authority has come to an end) procedural in nature although
after the time period specified u/s 9 employs the word “shall” may
of IBC therefore it has no power to not be held to be mandatory if
grant stay on sale of assets. thereby no prejudice is caused.
However, the 7 days period for
rectification of defect as
stipulated is required to be
complied whose application
 otherwise being incomplete is
fit to be rejected. The proviso
to remove defect within 7 days
are mandatory and on failure
application are fit to be
rejected.
The Court held that the end
result of Resolution Process is
approval of resolution plan or
initiation of liquidation
proceedings, hence the time
granted

11. Kirusa The only question arises for Key takeaways of the
Software considered in this appeal is what does judgement:
Private "dispute" and "existence of dispute" the definition of ‘dispute’ under
Ltd Vs. means for the purpose of the IBC is an inclusive
Mobilox determination of a petition under definition and not exhaustive;
Innovation section 9 of the 'I & B Code'? the expression ‘includes’ used
s Private in the definition of ‘dispute’
Ltd should be read as ‘means and
includes’; the definition of
‘dispute’ under the IBC it
cannot be limited to pending
proceedings or ‘lis’ within the
limited ambit of suit or
arbitration proceedings;
‘dispute’ will embrace not just
suits or arbitrations but its
ambit will extend to
proceedings initiated or
pending before consumer
courts, tribunal, labour court or
mediation, conciliation etc. as
well as any action taken by a
corporate debtor under any act
or law such as replying to a
notice under section 80 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
or an action under section 59 of
the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 or
an action regarding the quality
of goods or services provided
by an operation creditor; such
actions, suits, arbitrations,
proceedings before any court,
tribunal, or mediations etc.
must be in the context of a
debt, or quality of goods or
services or breach of
representation or warranty;
 ‘dispute’ must be raised (by the
corporate debtor) prior to the
notice for insolvency resolution
by an operational creditor
under section 8 of the IBC;
raising of a pending ‘dispute’
(by the corporate debtor)
cannot be a malafide dispute to
stall the insolvency resolution
process; 

12. Black The applicant/Operational Creditor The honorable NCLAT

Pearl filed an application under section 9 of
Hotels the Code before NCLT, Mumbai
Pvt. Ltd. Bench on the ground that the
Vs. Planet respondent/Corporate Debtor (CD)
M Retail had failed to pay its agreed dues. The
Ltd. Adjudicating Authority by its
impugned order dated 4th May 2017
dismissed the application on the
ground that the application was
barred by limitation.
observed that the right to apply
under the Code accrued to the
appellant only on and after 1
December 2016, when the code
came into force. Therefore, the
time limit of three years as
mentioned in the Limitation
Act had not lapsed for filing the
application and the debt was
not time-barred.
NCLAT held that there is
nothing on record that the
Limitation Act is applicable
to IBC. Hence, the period of
limitation with regard to the
Code would start only from 1
December 2016.
This implies that for all debts, a
fresh period of limitation would
start from the date the Code
came into force, i.e., 1
December 2016, with regard to
proceedings under the Code.

13. M/S The question arises for consideration It is true that under Section 36
Ksheeraba before the NCLAT is: of the Arbitration and
d “Whether pendency of a case before Conciliation Act, 1996, an
Constructi a Court under Section 34 of the Arbitral Award is executable as
ons Pvt. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a decree. It can be enforced
Ltd Vs. 1996 can be termed to be 'dispute in only after the time for filing the
M/s. Vijay existence' for the purpose of application under Section 34
Nirman subsection (6) of Section 5 of the has expired and/or, if no
Company 'I&B Code'.” application is made or such
Pvt. Ltd. application having been made
has been rejected. Therefore,
for the purpose of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, an
Arbitral Award reaches its
finality after expiry of
enforcement time or if the
application under Section 34 is
filed and rejected. However, for
the purpose of 'l&B Code' no
reliance can be placed on
Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, for
the reasons stated below.
The 'I&B Code' being a
Complete Code will prevail
over all other Acts including
Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996. As per, Section
238, provision of 'I&B Code'
is to override other laws,
including Arbitration Act,
1996. Therefore, the provision
under the 'I&B Code' with
regard to finality of an
Arbitral Award for initiation of
'Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process' will
prevail the provisions of the
'Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996'.
For the purpose of Section 9 of
the 'I&B Code', the
application to be preferred
under Form-5 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy (Application to
Adjudicating Authority) Rules,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as
"Rules, 2016") as per which,
the order passed by Arbitral
panel/Arbitral Tribunal has
been treated to be one of the
documents/ records and
evidence of default, as apparent
from Part V of Form 5.
The aforesaid provisions made
in the Form-5 if read with
subsection (6) of Section 5 and
Section 9 of the 'I&B Code' it is
clear that while pendency of
the suit or Arbitral Proceeding
has been termed to be an
'existence of dispute', an order
of a Court, Tribunal or Arbitral
Panel adjudicating on the
default (commonly known as
 Award), has been treated to be
a "record of Operational Debt".
In view of the aforesaid
provisions of law and mandate
of 'I&B Code', we hold that no
person can take advantage of
pendency of a case under
Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 to
stall 'Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process' under
Section 9 of the 'I&B Code'.

14. Shriram Rio Glass Solar SA preferred an The application under Section 9
EPC ltd. application under section 9 of the was not maintainable due to
Vs. Rio Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, various reasons, accordingly,
Glass 2016 seeking to set in motion the the order was set aside and the
Solar SA Corporate Insolvency Resolution fees of “Interim Resolution
Process against the appellant Shriram Professional” appointed by
EPC Limited. Adjudicating Authority will be
NCLT, Chennai Bench admitted the paid by the Corporate Debtor
application, ordered moratorium, for the period he has
appointed “Interim Resolution functioned.
Professional” with order of
prohibition in terms of Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Corporate Debtor challenged the
said order and appeal before the
NCLAT.

15. Sobha Application under Section 9 of the Initiation of ‘Corporate

Ltd. Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
Pancard 2016 been rejected on the ground of
Clubs Ltd. ‘existence of a dispute’ and in view
of action
taken by the Securities and Exchange
Board of India. Does SEBI Order
constitute dispute? Hence Appeal to
Honorable NCLAT.
SEBI has passed an order, inter alia,
directing the ‘Corporate Debtor’ not
to alienate, dispose or sell any of the
assets of the Company except for the
purpose of making refunds to its
investors and the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs and to initiate the
process of winding up of the
Respondent.
Arbitration Proceedings under
Insolvency Resolution
Process’ under ‘I&B Code’
cannot be nullified by any
order passed by SEBI nor can
be a ground to reject an
application under Section 9 of
the ‘I&B Code’ but as there is
an ‘existence of dispute’ with
regard to the invoices raised
by the Appellant- ‘Operational
Creditor’, we hold that the
application under Section 9 of
the ‘I&B Code’ was not
maintainable
 Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed
by parties before the Hon’ble High
Court much prior to service of notice
under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of
the ‘I&B Code’ and thereby, there is
an ‘existence of dispute’. Prayer was
made to dismiss the application.

16. Philips Operational Creditor had preferred Corporate debtor much prior to
India Ltd. two separate applications for issuance of notice under
Vs. initiation of Corporate Insolvency section 8 had raised a dispute
Goodwill Resolution Process invoking relating to quality of
Hospital provisions of Section 9 of service/maintenance pursuant
and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, to notice under sections 433(e)
research 2016 (IBC )for default in making and 434(1)(a) of the
centre Ltd. payment of Comprehensive Annual Companies Act, 1956 it can be
Karina Maintenance Contract. safely stated that there is
Healthcare ‘existence of dispute’ about
Pvt. Ltd. the claim of debt. Such
objection cannot be called
mere objection for the sake of
‘dispute’ and/or unrelated to
clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-
section (6) of section 5. Where
adjudicating authority has
accordingly refused to
entertain application under
section 9 of the Code, no
ground is made out for
interference with such orders
17. Ganesh Two issues were involved in the 1st issue: it is clear that the
Sponge order passed by the Adjudicating learned Adjudicating
Pvt. Ltd Authority. Authority is empowered to
Vs. Aryan Adjudicating Authority rejected the permit withdrawal of the
Mining joint application preferred by the application under Section 7, 9
and appellant and the respondent to or 10 of the I&B Code, as the
Trading withdraw the petition. case may be, on the request
Corporatio Appellant contended, that the made by the appellant before
n Pvt. Ltd. application was defective; the notice the admission, but such
under Section 8 was not issued by the withdrawal cannot be
'Operational Creditor' but by its permitted once the application
lawyer and also stated that there was is admitted. Thus, NCLAT in
‘existence of dispute’ regarding the absence of any illegality found
quality of goods. no ground to interfere with the
order of Adjudicating
Authority

18. Labdhi The appellant filed an application For initiation of 'Corporate

Enterprise under Sections 433, 434(e) and 439 Insolvency Resolution
s Vs. of the Companies Act,1956 before Process', the right to apply
 Baramati the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, accrues under Section 7 or
Agro Pvt. Mumbai for winding up the Section 9 or Section 10 only
Ltd. Respondent Company on the ground with effect from 1st December,
that the debtor Company defaulted 2016 when 'I&B Code' has
in making payment of Rs. come into force, therefore, the
27,97,696/- to the Appellant. Since right to apply under Section 7
by notification dated 7th December or Section 9 or Section 10 in all
2016, “The Companies (Transfer of present cases having accrued
pending proceedings) Rules 2016” after 1st December 2016, such
came into force. the petition under applications cannot be rejected
Sections 439,434(e) and 439 of the on the ground that the
Companies Act, 1956, which was application is barred by
pending before the Hon’ble Bombay limitation.”
High Court was transferred to the
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai.
Respondent took plea that the claim
was barred by limitation and holding
this contention the Adjudicating
Authority refused to treat the
Application under Section of 9 of the
I & B Code on one of the grounds
that the Appellant failed to show
that the debtor Company
acknowledged the debt due since last
three years from 27th April, 2010
when it was payable and thereby the
debt is time barred.

19. Prowess An application for initiation of CIRP was NCLT dismissed the application.
Internation filed by Operational Creditor - Parker Upon appeal, NCLAT observed
al Pvt. Ltd. Hannifin India Pvt. Ltd. Immediately as under:
vs. Parker upon coming to know of the initiation of “where all creditors have been
Hannifin proceedings against it, Corporate Debtor - satisfied and there is no default
India Pvt. Prowess International Pvt. Ltd. with any other creditor, the
Ltd. (“Prowess”) settled its dues with the formality of submission of
operational creidot as well as other resolution plan under section 30 or
creditors. its approval under section 31 is
Prowess filed an application for closure required to be expedited on the
of the CIRP. basis of plan if prepared. In such
case, the Adjudicating Authority
without waiting for 180 days of
resolution process, may
approve resolution plan under
section 31, after recording its
satisfaction that all creditors have
been paid/ satisfied and any other
creditor do not claim any amount in
absence of default and required to
close the Insolvency Resolution
Process...
It is made clear that Insolvency
 Resolution Process is not a
recovery proceeding to recover the
dues of the creditors. I & B Code,
2016 is an Act relating to
reorganisation and insolvency
resolution of corporate persons,
partnership firms and individuals in a
time bound manner ”

20. Neelkanth Neelkanth Township had subscribed to NCLAT held that section 5(8)
Township optionally convertible debentures issued by (c) of the Code makes it clear
and the Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd., that a debenture comes within
Constructi Corporate Debtor (“Urban the meaning of financial debt.
on Pvt. Infrastructure”). The debentures carried Thus, debenture certificates
Ltd. vs. nil or 1% p.a. interest rate and matured in issued by Corporate Debtor
Urban years 2011, 2012 and 2013. comes within the definition of
Infrastruct Before the NCLAT, Urban Infrastructure financial debt as it relates to
ure contended that Neelkanth Township is amount raised pursuant to
Trustees actually an investor and not a ‘Financial debentures.
Ltd Creditor’ as defined under the Code.

21. Falcon In this case, the main plea taken In this appeal filed by
Tyres was that an association of Falcon Tyres, the
Limited workmen had been impleaded honorable NCLAT in its
vs. due to the admission of the order stated that after the
Belthang application under the Code. admission of an application
ady for the initiation of
Taluk corporate insolvency
Rubber resolution, the association
Growers of workmen has no role to
Marketin play except their members,
g& individually, may file a
Processi claim to the RP. The RP
ng Co- would then process the
op. claim in accordance with
Society the provision of the Code.
Limited &
Anr.

22. Canara The moratorium will not affect

Bank Vs. any suit or case pending before
the SC under Article 32 (Right to
Deccan
constitutional remedy) of the
Chronicles Constitution of India or where an
Holdings order is passed under Article 136
Limited (Special leave petition) or the
power of the High Court under
Article 226 (Powers of High
Court) of Constitution of India.
However, a suit filed before any
high court under the original
jurisdiction that is a money suit or
 a suit for recovery against the
CD cannot proceed after the
declaration of moratorium under
the Code.

23. Jindal Despite the existence of

Steel & the MOU, the applicant,
Power who is the tenant of the
Limited respondent CD, cannot be
vs. DCM treated as operational
Internatio creditor under IBC, as the
nal claims of the tenant against
Limited the landlord is not in
respect of any goods or
services.

24. Sandeep
Reddy &
Anr. vs.
Jaycon
Infrastructur
e Ltd
25. M/s
Innoventiv
e Industries
Ltd. vs.
ICICI
Bank &
Anr
26. Era Infra
Engineerin
g Ltd. vs.
Prideco
Commerci
al Projects
Pvt. Ltd.
27. Lokhandw
ala Kataria
Constructi
on Pvt.
Ltd. vs.
Nisus
Finance &
Investment
Mangaer
LLP [
28. Steel
Konnect
(India)
Private
 Limited vs.
M/s Hero
Fincorp
Limited
29. Nikhil
Mehta and
Sons vs.
AMR
Infrastruct
ure Ltd
30. Sandeep
Reddy &
Anr. vs.
Jaycon
Infrastructur
e Ltd.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.