PROJECT WORK

ON
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL: POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS
SUBMITTED TO:
AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY

BY
SUBMITTED BY –

KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082

SURBHI AGGARWAL- A3256120109

UNDER GUIDANCE OF
Dr ISHA SALUJA

AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH
 AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

PROJECT TITLE: NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL:

POWER AND FUNCTIONS
PROGRAMME: LL.B, 3rd YEAR, 5th SEMESTER
NAME OF STUDENTAND ENROLLMENT NO:
KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082
SURBHI AGGARWAL- A3256120109
.
BATCH :2020-2023
NAME OF GUIDE : Dr ISHA SALUJA
 DECLARATION BY THE STUDENTS

We hereby declare that the matter in the project work titled

“NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL: POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS” submitted to Dr ISHA SALUJA, professor at Amity
Law School, Noida, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh, is a Bonafide
and genuine work done under the guidance of Dr ISHA SALUJA.
The work done in the report is original and has not been submitted
earlier for the award of any degree, diploma, or fellowship, or any
other university or institution.

STUDENT’S NAME AND ENROLLMENT NUMBER:

KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082
SURBHI AGGARWAL- A3256120109
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our special thanks and gratitude towards our
professor Dr ISHA SALUJA, as well as other staffs of Amity Law
school who were involved in this project paper, who gave me the
golden opportunity to do this project on “NATIONAL COMPANY
LAW TRIBUNAL: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS” it helped us
gather lots of information about which we were totally unaware of
prior to the project work. we would really like to thank them for this.
Secondly, we would also like to thank our parents and friends who
helped us a lot in finalizing this research paper within the limited time
frame.
Thanking You!

KUMAR DHRUVA - A3256120082

SURBHI AGGARWAL- A3256120109
 ABSTRACT
India is targeting to become one of the biggest busniess hub in the world, providing great
assistance to the individuals, companies and firms to strive in the nation having the second
largest population in the world through various acts, dispute resolution mechanisms etc. after
countries like Singapore, United States of America, European countries etc. One such step
towards this progressive growth is the establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal.
NCLT as known in its short form is a quasi-judicial organisation, which has been tasked with
the resolution of important cases concerning busniess activities of companies in India.
Created in 2016 after recommendations of Justice Eradi committee under Companies Act of
2013 which in itself is paramount legislation, succeeded the Company Law Board. The
tribunal exercises its power conferred to it under the Section 408 and Section 410 of the
Companies Act. Even though the the Companies Act is the main act from which tribunal
derives its existence and power, it is also assisted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016, in which the National Company Law Tribunal serves as the Adjudicating Authority for
insolvency proceedings, where once insolvency petition is granted by the Tribunal the case
can’t be dismissed unless authorised by the highest court of the country under the Article 142
of the constitution1 . The aim of this paper is to understand the tribunal, its need in India in
which we will see its emergence, powers and functions of the tribunal and recent tends by
using reference of case laws to understand the tribunal better.

Keywords: - National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Company Law Board (CLB),
Implementation.

INTRODUCTION

Intended to be introduced in the indian legal system in as early of the year 2002 under the
framework of predecessor Companies Act, 1956 , the setting up of the actual tribunal and
giving it a constitutional validity as a reality took the system more than 10 years in the
making when it finally came into the existence in the the year after the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs (MCA) through a notification with immediate effect established the National
Company Law Tribunal and its appellate authority 2, the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal, known as NCLAT in its short form. The ministry notification not only constituted a
new tribunal but also dissolved the Company Law Board which was entrenched under the
Companies Act, 1956. The establishment consolidated the corporate jurisdiction bifurcated
among various authorities into one single authority3. Put into action after based on Justice
1
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to
discovery, etc
2
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to
discovery, etc
3
Various authorise which were consolidated to form NCLT are:
1. Company Law Board
2. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.
Eradi committee recommendations, which was set up in 1999 to inquire into the existing
laws of that time related to process of companies winding up to ensure its re-model with the
lines of modern or up to date innovations and developments in the field of corporate law or
also known as enterprise law and good governance and to propose reforms in the given
procedure stated on various stages of the winding up followed in the proceedings dealing
with the insolvency or liquidation of the companies to circumvent futile hinderance in
accordance with the international standards and practises in this area. In advancement to the
recommendations of the committee, the Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 also
pressed for new provision for establishing the tribunal and its appellate authority to replace
the Company Law Board to dispose of cases in lines with this Amendment and the
Companies Act of 1956. Thus it won’t be wrong to argue that the reason for setting up NCLT
and NCLAT were the efforts taken from our government to have faster resolution mechanism
to resolve corporate issues and disputes, to improve the image of the country as a place of
ease of doing busniess. When it cones to its comes to its composition, NCLT consists of one
presiding officer and required numeral of Technical and Judicial members. Its principle
bench is located in the capital of the country, Delhi and have total number of ten benches in
other states of the country located in Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata etc.

EMERGENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN

INDIA

For India as evident from the introduction of this paper, the journey in actual initiation of the
NCLT and NCLAT has been a long one which not only saw its seeds implanted in the
previous Company Act, committees formed and amendments made to the Act and there are
many case laws and reasons which contributed behind this long journey. Like for example the
Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association 4, where even though the
constitutional validity of the proposed structure recommended in the 2002 Amendment Act
were held unconstitutional, the legislative competence of the Parliament to establish the
tribunal were upheld by the apex court after the 2002 Amendment Act constitutional validity
was challenged by the Bar Association of Madras. This posed a delay in the establishment,
since the ministry was directed to make modifications to the Amendment Act, including the
selection, qualification and tenure of the members. These changes were brought in by
introduction of latest Companies Act, 2013, ousting Companies Act, 1956 which included
notable assistance for operations, establishment, powers and control of NCLT and NCLAT in
line with changes required by the Supreme Court in its 2010 judgement. However, the
provisions in the new Act were again challenged by the same Madras Bar Association in
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India & Anr citing contradictions and inconsistency in
the new Act with the directions given by the Supreme Court in the earlier 2010 case 5. The
Constitutional Bench of the Apex court held the constitutional validity of the constitution of

3. The Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

4. Jurisdiction and powers relating to winding up restructuring and other such provisions, vested in the High
Courts.
4
[(2010) 11 SCC 1
5
[(2015) 8 SCC 583]
both National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal like it
did earlier. It further held that, in India with accordance to the constitution the Legislative is
competent to set up alternatives to courts in form of tribunals which will act as a forum for
resolution on specialised matters, on condition that the tribunal at issue has the qualitative
accompaniments and competence of the court which sought to be replaced. However some
corrections were made with respect to the eligibility of the technical members in harmony to
the previous judgement. This is how the questions related to the constitution of the tribunals
and their validity was finally settled by the Supreme Court in later judgement.

NEED FROM TRANSITION FROM CLB TO NCLT

As highlighted in the introduction of this paper before the establishment of the tribunal,
corporate jurisdiction were divided among various authorities in which one of the main
authority was the Company Law Board (CLB). There were many reasons why the legislature
felt the need to replace Company Law Board with National Company Law Tribunal and those
following reasons are:-
 This is no hidden fact that Indian Courts are burdened with huge pile of cases before
them from getting solved. Thus the primary reason for the establishment was to ease
pressure from the High Courts by shifting the provisions related to companies
accounts investigation, freezing of their assets, winding up of the company,
transformation of public company to a private company, amalgamation, compromise
and class suit actions is now meant to be dealt by NCLT instead of the High courts
which also includes appeals.
 Complimenting to the first reason listed above, the reduction of burden from the High
courts will also facilitate faster dispute resolution for the companies stakeholders
which will improve the image of the country in ease of running busniess and ensure
efficient free flow of management.
 Due to bifurcation of the dispute resolution authorities there was a persistent demand
from the individuals and busniess houses to have a standard jurisdiction in form of a
single dispute resolution authority which is both time and cost effective.
 To secure quicken implementation of bankruptcy code in India.

In Shashi Prakash Khemka v. NEPC Micon and ors 6, the Supreme court held that all disputes
brought into the legal system after the Companies Act, 2013 will be given remedy as decided
by the NCLT.

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW

TRIBUNAL
6
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1965-1966 OF 2014
Class Action: From the beginning, the fear of company law has been the protection of the
interests and rights of various partners, particularly non-promoter investors. There have been
numerous errors that have been acknowledged, with investors being the main culprits. The
financial experts found that they had lost their well-earned money on speculations made in
several registered organisations that they had invested in, and that these organisations had
ultimately succeeded in defrauding their partners and investors. Investors have a good
selection of remedies available to them under the Companies Act of 2013 in the event that
fraud is committed. Investors now have a means of retaliation against the perpetrator in
addition to making various groups included parties for a common lawsuit more certainly a
class action lawsuit. Accordingly, the wrongdoers and ancillaries will now have to
compensate the investors and contributors for the losses they sustained as a result of the
company's dishonest business activities.
A class action lawsuit is a specialised element that enables the plaintiff(s) to present a claim
on behalf of a larger group, known as a class. The concept of class action litigation is similar
to an agent suit when a select few of the participants speak to the interests of a group of
people, including their rights and obligations. For investors who are geographically dispersed
and are affected by the wrongdoings of the corporation, a class action lawsuit is beneficial. It
can be a useful tool when a couple can take legal action for the benefit of the masses. To
protect investors from the wrongdoing of the company management or other foundations and
professionals associated to the body corporate, Section 245 has been added to the Companies
Act, 2013. The class action lawsuit affects both private division and open part organisations.
It may be started in opposition to any corporation that was formed in accordance with the
Companies Act of 2013 or a previous Companies Act of 1956 7. The keeping money
organisations are the principal exceptions to class action lawsuits.

Registration of Companies: Companies Act of 2013 allows for the scrutiny of any
company's legitimacy in light of specific procedural errors made during the registration and
consolidation processes. The NCLT has the authority to take a variety of actions, such as
deleting the registration or dissolving the firm. Significantly expanding the charge or danger
against an individual is the Tribunal's power. This new method for de-registrating a company
has been made available under Section 7(7) of the Act of 2013 in certain exceptional
situations where the registration endorsement was obtained illegally or improperly.

Refusal to Transfer shares : Additionally, the NCLT has the authority to consider
appeals regarding the dismissal of organisations, the transfer of shares and securities, and the
adjustment of an individual's enrollment under Sections 58 and 59 of the Companies Act of
2013, all of which were once under the purview of the CLB. Backpedaling to the 1956
demonstration, the only securities covered by the remedies available for foreswearing of
transfer or transmission were the firm's shares and debentures. However, thanks to the 2013
Act, the scope of the same has been broadened to include all securities issued by a company.
Contracts governing the transfer of securities that are marked between at least 2 people about
the shares of an open company are expressly affirmed by the provisions governing cures in
the event of default or extortion by the company.

7
http://www.lawstreetindia.com/experts/column?sid=164
Deposits: In shifting eras in 2014, Chapter V of the Companies Act, 2013, which regulates
deposits, was advised, and CLB was the expert to take on matters under this section. With its
public release, these part V powers have currently been transferred from CLB to NCLT 8.
Regarding the statute on deposits under the 1956 demonstration and the 2013 demonstration,
there was an obvious difference in its essence. Before the creation of the NCLT, the
arrangements for deposits under the 2013 Companies Act were then disclosed. In order to
find a solution for the claims and exclusions relating to the firm that affect their rights in the
position of the contributors, troubled investors now additionally have a remedy of class action
lawsuits.

Reopening and Revision of Financial Accounts: Many instances of distortion were

present under the Act of 1956 prior to the consolidation of the Companies Act in 2013. In
order to prevent and eliminate such threats in the future, numerous provisions have been
added into the Act of 2013. For instance, the new Act's Sections 130 R/W 447 and 131 R/W
448 provide for limitations on the company's ability to suomotu commence or access its
ledgers or examine its financial records. All of the aforementioned can be completed in the
manner recommended by the 2013 Act. Sections 130 and 131 govern the situations under
which each of the company's financial justifications may be revisited and renewed. When
certain predefined criteria were met or violated by the company and the same was displayed
under the watchful eye of the official courtroom, Section 130 is required arrangement,
wherein the Tribunal or Court attempting the issue has the power to instruct the company to
revive its financial records. While Section 131 grants a firm permission to update its financial
records, it says nothing about resurrecting the company's records. Under section 131 of the
new Act, the company may suo moto apply to the Tribunal (NCLT) through one or more of
its directors to change its financial articulation.9

Tribunal Ordered Investigations: The Companies Act of 2013's Chapter XIV grants
NCLT a variety of examination-related responsibilities. The Tribunal's three supremely
important powers are:
A. Power to organise exams: According to the Companies Act's provisions, a 2013
examination of the company's concerns may be requested with the use of 100 people,
whereas 200 people were needed for the same prior to the 2013 demonstration. Furthermore,
the tribunal has the authority to set up an examination if any individual who isn't affiliated
with the corporation can persuade NCLT about the existence of criteria to do so. Any
examination that the NCLT requests may be conducted anywhere in the world, including in
India. Plans have been made for asking for and receiving assistance from international courts
and examination organisations.
B. Power to solidify resources of the company: The NCLT is not the only entity with the
authority to preserve a firm's advantages for use at a later time when the company is being
examined; in some circumstances, other parties may also request the NCLT to conduct an
examination.

8
Company Law, Avtar Singh
9
https://cleartax.in/s/national-company-law-tribunal#:~:text=NCLT%20works%20on%20the%20lines,in%20the
%20form%20of%20orders.
Conversion of open company into privately owned business : The conversion of a
Public Limited Company into a Private Limited Company is governed by Sections 13 to 18
of the Companies Act, 2013 Revised Rules. This conversion necessitates an earlier NCLT
confirmation. According to Section 459 of the Companies Act of 2013, the Tribunal has the
authority to impose restrictions or conditions and may do so when giving an endorsement.

Tribunal Convened AGM: The corporation periodically evaluates shareholder opinions

in its general meetings. The Companies Act of 2013 mandates that every corporation hold a
"annual general meeting," sometimes known as a "AGM," each year. The different general
meeting(s) fall under the category of "extra normal general meeting." If the company fails to
organise or call an AGM or EOGM in accordance with the procedure outlined in the
Companies Act of 2013, the NCLT is empowered under sections 97 and 98 of the Act of
2013 to coordinate the organisations or, to a certain extent, call general meetings of the
defaulter company. There is no distinction in arrangements under both the Companies Act's
with respect to the AGM and EOGM. 10

Auditors Certificate: The draught guidelines displayed by MCA state that a corporation
does not required to submit a reviewer's endorsement to NCLT if it is recorded or unlisted.
The authentication of the current evaluator is crucial for ensuring consistency with the MCA-
recommended bookkeeping standard. Prior to this, only organisations that have been
registered with SEBI were needed to provide this confirmation. This development will assist
in lowering the adaptability of bookkeeping for unlisted organisations and further manage the
capital-diminishing procedure.

Corporate Debt Restructuring(CDR): The NCLT can be contacted if more than 75%
of secured loan supervisors consider that a corporate obligation rebuilding is necessary, in
accordance with the NCLT's draught principles. The Companies Act of 1956 did not grant
this type of office to the existing lessees. Additionally, the candidate must reveal through
testimony various matters such as the inspectors report adjusting the liquidity test following
the CDR safeguards for the loan bosses, the creditors duty proclamation, and the valuation
report evaluated by an enrolled valuer speaking to the shares and all of the advantages of the
company.

EMERGING ROLE OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

Legal experts and investors believe that The National Company Law Tribunal, which is
already anticipating about 2,000 financial catastrophe cases, can also see the explosion of
10
Avtar Singh, Company Law
new events that could obstruct the deadline once the financial controller redesigned how
advance defaults are to be handled. Financiers state that while only a small part of major
cases are now being attempted, there are a few examples in the SME (small and medium
enterprises) and mid-cap region where the rebuilding process has been finished but failed.
The key management tool for defaulters is RBI's rejection of all obligation rebuilding
programmes and creation of time-bound targets for terrible advances. If a goal plan does not
fail in one hundred and eighty days, accounts with a total obligation of more than Rs 2,000
crore must be brought to NCLT within 15 days, according to RBI. "NCLT is as of now under
stress because they don't have as many people and that they were battling to manage the
strain," says RBI. Approximately 5,000 cases have so far been referred to NCLT, which was
established in June 2016, and more than 500 cases are currently at various stages of hearing
in which bankruptcy decision-making began.
Presently, India has one NCLAT and eleven NCLT seats. Six specialised experts and sixteen
legal providers make up the 22 members of NCLT. It is anticipated that the new seats will
increase in Bhubaneswar, Jaipur, and Kochi. Currently, the NCLT has 10 seats across Delhi,
Ahmadabad, Allahabad, Bengaluru, Chandigarh, Chennai, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Kolkata,
and Mumbai, with Delhi housing its most important seat. To handle a growing number of
debt claims, the Ministry of not actually decided to establish Special courts under the
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).11 It is very likely that 30 adjudicators will be used
in Special Courts. The special courts may not have many specialised personnel, but they are
unable to function without attorneys. Courts to be establishment 3 in Mumbai, in New Delhi
and one each in Chennai, Kolkata and Hyderabad.
Aside from debt and financial disaster issues, the NCLT also handles mergers and
acquisitions and cases involving venture law. Two of the crucial 12 events that the RBI
alludes to have been resolved. In addition to the experts working on a move-line bankruptcy
system that will demand the NCLT to update its foundation, e-courts may be built up so that
pass-line debt legal disputes can occur inside the wards that exhibit a capacity with the Indian
experts. The UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model
Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 1997, was created with the goal of providing the most
comprehensive successive judicial framework to address pass-line bankruptcy difficulties.
The expressed Model Law has been embraced through 44 nations, along with Singapore, the
United Kingdom, and the United
States. In 2016 the equivalent has been brought about the reception of The Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code.

CASE LAWS

11
https://thelawbrigade.com/company-law/role-of-national-company-law-tribunal-its-formation/
  Innoventive Industries Vs ICICI Bank
Facts
Innoventive Industries requested that the insolvency resolution proceedings be started at the
Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") after Innoventive was
determined to be in default under the IBC. Since all Innovative responsibilities and remedies
for compliance activities were temporarily stopped for 2 years in accordance with
notifications made under the 1958 Maharashtra Relief Undertaking ("Maharashtra Act"),
Innoventive's main defence was that no debt was lawfully owed.12
Main Contentions
1. Could the appeal be kept up as it was made by Innoventive's former directors following the
hiring of an insolvency counsel to run the business?
2. Did the Maharashtra Act and the IBC genuinely offend you?
3. Will the non-obstante provision in IBC section 238 take precedence over the provision in
section 4 of the Maharashtra Act?
NCLT Judgement
On January 17, 2017, the NCLT ruled that the Maharashtra Relief Undertaking (Special
Provisions Act) would take precedence over the non-obstante in the Maharashtra Relief
Undertaking (Special Provisions Act), 1958 ("Maharashtra Act") due to the non-
discriminatory clause in Section 238 of the IBC, 2016 ("Maharashtra Act"). As IBC is a
Central Act and Central law supersedes State law, the Maharashtra Relief Undertaking
(Special Provisions Act), 1958 ("Maharashtra Act") is a State Act.
Judgment of NCLAT
Upheld decision Of NCLT
Judgment of Supreme Court
The SC ruled that former directors who are no longer in management cannot appeal on behalf
of the company once an insolvency professional has been hired to administer it. As a result,
the appeal was not valid in this particular instance. However, the Supreme Court did not tend
to dismiss the appeal based on this one argument. The judges believed it was important to
provide a full ruling because this was the first case to be transferred under the IBC and they
wanted all courts and tribunals to be aware of the paradigm shift in Indian insolvency law.

In order to determine whether there is any conflict between the IBC and the Maharashtra Act,
the Supreme Court thoroughly examined numerous case laws and constitutional principles
and proposed, among other things, the following ideas:
a) The difference must be obvious and direct, and it must be of a nature that brings the
two Acts or portions of them into open conflict with one another, creating a situation
12
https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2017/09/innoventive-industries-limited-v-icici-bank-limited-
paradigm-shift-insolvency-law-india/
 in which they are at odds with one another. When two laws create different legal
results when applied to the same evidence, this happens.
b) While there may be no direct conflict, the legislation of the State may be inoperative
because the Parliamentary law is intended to be a complete, exhaustive or exclusive
code and superior to state Code.

 Binani Industries Vs Bank of Baroda, National Company Law

Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata

Facts
Due to a default on payments, the Committee of Creditors started the CIRP process
against Binani Industries. 99.43% of the Committee of Creditors (COC) approved
Rajputana Properties Private Limited's Resolution Strategy at the meeting on March 14,
2018, which took place.
However, 10.53 percent of the COC, who were compelled to approve the "Resolution
Program," indicated their disapproval. They claimed that in comparison to other
financiers who served as the corporate guarantors for the corporate debtor, they had not
been treated fairly. In accordance with Sections 30 and 31 of the IBC and Regulation 39
of the 2016 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Rules, the RP submitted a request
for approval of the Resolution Plan in Binani Cement Limited.
A lesser percentage was proposed for the claims of other financial creditors, such as the
Export-Import Bank of India (72.59%) and State Bank of India-Hong Kong (10%),
whereas the Resolution Plan of Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. provided that the Financial
Creditors, such as "Edelweiss Asset Restructuring Company Limited," "IDBI Bank
Limited," "Bank of Baroda," "Canara Bank," "Bank of India," and "State Bank of India,"
would Some of the lenders claimed that the resolution plan was biassed, therefore they
applied to the NCLT to have it ignored so that they may submit fresh proposals.13
Issues
a) Whether RP exceeded his power in Appointing Other Professionals and Outsourcing
Works?
b) Whether Non Considering of revised offer from Ultratech is Violative of Provisions
Under IBC?
Judgement
a) Whether RP exceeded his power in Appointing Other Professionals and Outsourcing
Works?
The Tribunal observed that costs incurred by RP in engaging people was exorbitant and
directed costs should be reasonable.

13
https://www.ijlmh.com/binani-industries-ltd-v-bank-of-baroda-and-another-an-analysis/#:~:text=The
%20case%20of%20Binani%20Industries,the%20auctions%20of%20stressed%20assets.
 b) Whether Non-Considering of revised offer from Ultratech is Violative of Provisions
Under IBC?
Yes, It is violative as the CoC decided to negotiate with only the H1 bidder which is
against the basic provisions Of code aimed at maximising value. The Coc went ahead
with Approval of plan submitted by Rajputana Properties which is Unjust and Arbitrary,
Company which was not an H1 bidder was as Disqualified from the Bidding Process.
which is not valid due to the following:
Negotiation only With H1 Bidder Not the test Of the code. RP should Act independent Of
CoC, his resolution Plan should Be fair across all Categories Of Creditors.
 RP and CoC should aim at Maximisation of Value, Receipt of Email not a Criteria
For rejection
 He is duty bound To place all plans that satisfy requirements Of Sec. 30(2)
 Any plan/bid submission till CIR process is not concluded to be taken to its logical
conclusion.

c) Whether the Resolution Plan is Discriminative Against Unsecured Financial

Creditors?
NCLT observed that there has been Discrimination In Consideration of Claims of
Financial Creditors in the Resolution Plan and the Resolution Plan Accordingly Needed
Modifications
d) Whether RP has Ignored Claims Of Operational Creditors?
The NCLT observed That a Reduction In Amounts Payable to Operational Creditors Is
Acceptable However Such Reduction Should Be Acceptable To all Class of Creditors
Since the Plan Contained settlements At Various class Of Creditors Differently the NCLT
observed that Resolution Plan Contravenes Some Provisions Of the Code as such
Regulation is not in line with the Objectives Of Code.

 Tata Sons Vs Cyrus Mistry Case

Facts
Due To disagreements and difference Of Opinion between Tata Trusts (Largest Shareholder
of Tata Sons) and Cyrus Mistry(Then Chairman of Tata Sons) Cyrus was removed From his
Position Of Chairman on Charges of gross Mismanagement Of Company.

NCLT Judgement
The two investment firms of the Mistry family's complaint are dismissed by NCLT Mumbai
on the basis of viability, according to the court, because they did not meet the requirements
for filing a case of alleged exploitation of minority shareholders under the Companies Act,
2013—10% ownership in a company.
Ratan Tata and the corporate board's allegations of systemic abuse are rejected by NCLT
Mumbai, as are Mistry's petitions defending his removal as chairman of Tata Sons. The court
stated that it found little merit in the plaintiff's allegations of poor management in Tata Group
entities. NCLT Mumbai also refuses petitions requesting a waiver from the two investment
firms on the grounds that they have at least 10% share of a filing their case of oppression and
mismanagement against Tata sons by SP Group.14
NCLAT Judgement
Mistry's investment companies are appealing the NCLT decision that denied their requests
for maintenance to the NCLAT. They also contested the denial of their request for a waiver.
On September 21, 2017, NCLAT approved petitions from the two investment firms asking
for a waiver in order to file a lawsuit of injustice and poor management against Tata Sons,
however Mistry's other appeal on sustainability was denied on the grounds that the firms did
not. On December 18, 2019, the NCLAT reinstated Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of
Tata Sons Ltd. However, it postponed its implementation for four weeks to provide Tata
Group time to file an appeal.
SC Judgement: Awaited

 Mack Soft Tech Pvt. Limited&Anr. Vs Quinn Logistics India Pvt.

Limited
Issue

14
https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/personalities/news/cyrus-mistry-vs-tata-group-decoding-the-battle-
of-prestige-between-indias-most-prominent-parsi-families/articleshow/94000771.cms
 Whether Financial Creditor Can Claim Its Dues & File Action Under IBC For in Case Of
No Supporting Documents or Over Limitation Period?
Judgement
Limitation Act, 1963 is not valid for claiming amount under IBC but Application Under Sec-
7 is Time –Barred For 3 Years. But in this case, the cause of action is continuing, therefore,
application Under Sec-7 Is Admissable.15

CONCLUSION

NCLT is the successor to the company law board. With the establishment of NCLT, there
will be a speedy remedy in resolving the company law disputes and will be disposed of
expeditiously. Appeals can be made by an aggrieved party from any decision or order passed
by NCLT within the period of forty-five days of the receipt of an order or decision to
NCLAT. Further, NCLAT gives its decision within six months from the date of receipt of the
appeal. No civil court has jurisdiction to decide the cases where NCLT and NCLAT are
empowered to do so.

15
https://ibclaw.in/mack-soft-tech-pvt-ltd-vs-quinn-logistics-india-ltd-nclat-new-delhi/