NCLAT upholds insolvency order for Future Ideas Company Limited
NCLAT
) on Monday upheld NCLT's order admitting
Future Ideas Company Limited
(FICL), part of the Future Group, into insolvency over
dues
of ₹122.83 crore.
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, admitted FICL into insolvency last month in an insolvency petition filed by
Axis Trustee Services
, representing Franklin Templeton Asset Management (India) Pvt Ltd as its debenture trustee.
A debenture trustee is a body representing the interests of debenture holders while holding debentures for them.
The debt arose from non-convertible debentures issued by FICL in 2018, according to terms agreed under Debenture Trust-cum-Mortgage Deed (DTMD).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
17 hours ago
- United News of India
SC sets aside NCLAT ruling, allows IL&FS appeal in insolvency case
New Delhi, Aug 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court today allowed the appeal filed by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN) and overturned the March 25, 2025, judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had upheld the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) dismissal of IFIN's insolvency plea as time-barred. The case involved a loan default by Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., and the key issue was whether entries in the company's 2019–20 balance sheet could be treated as an acknowledgment of debt. IFIN argued that this acknowledgment extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing them to initiate insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Supreme Court agreed with IFIN, holding that the balance sheet entries indicated that the debt was still unpaid even though IFIN's name was not directly mentioned. The Court said that acknowledgment of liability does not need to name the creditor, as long as it shows the existence of a debt. The Bench also addressed confusion over its earlier COVID-related orders on extension of limitation. It clarified that the correct clause to apply was Para 5(I) of its suo motu judgment in In Re: Cognisance for Extension of Limitation. As a result, the period between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, would not be counted in calculating the deadline. Thus, IFIN's application filed on January 15, 2024, was held to be well within the extended limitation period. The Court referred to and reaffirmed earlier rulings, including Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Bishal Jaiswal (2021) and Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank (2024), stating that balance sheet entries should be interpreted in a broad, contextual manner to determine acknowledgment of debt. Setting aside the findings of both the NCLT and NCLAT, the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the NCLT for a fresh decision on the merits. Senior Advocate Ritin Rai, along with a legal team from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, represented IFIN. UNI SNG AAB
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business Standard
Google proposes allowing all real-money games on Play Store in India
Google has proposed changes to its Play Store and advertising policies for India's real-money gaming (RMG) sector, potentially allowing more such apps on the platform. The move comes on the heels of tech major moving the Supreme Court against an NCLT order, which partially upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI's) ruling that Google had leveraged its dominance in the Android ecosystem. The tech giant also said it was finalising an approach for an 'appropriate business model' that would take into account the commercial model used by developers in the RMG ecosystem. Google has proposed to replace its current pilot program to allow the distribution of all RMGs in India. These games are required to be self-declared by developers as 'as permissible online real money games as per applicable laws/jurisprudence, on Google Play in India'. Apps will be required to submit proof to demonstrate that their app is legally permissible and that it is in good standing with a reputable and authoritative third party body recognised in Google's policies. Games intended for distribution on the Play Store would need to be certified by designated industry associations, which will determine whether a game qualifies as a 'permissible game of skill'. These industry bodies may include online skill gaming associations such as the All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS), or the E-Gaming Federation (EGF). It will also allow RMGs, that constitute games of skill, to be advertised in India subject to third party certification. 'By permitting all RMGs self-declared by developers as permissible online RMGs as per applicable laws/jurisprudence, any alleged advantage previously conferred to DFS (Daily Fantasy Sports) and Rummy apps is eliminated, and the competitive field is levelled,' Google said in its proposal. Compliant RMG apps would be enabled to be distributed on the Google Play Store within 120 days of the acceptance of the tech giant's proposal. In the digital world, RMG refers to skill-based games such as rummy, poker, or fantasy sports, among others, where players can stake money to compete for cash rewards. If the proposal is accepted, Google may also end up earning revenue from an expanded pool of RMG apps and associated advertising.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
SC recalls verdict on liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel, says ‘matter needs to be considered afresh'
The Supreme Court on Thursday recalled its May 2, 2025, judgment that ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) after rejecting steel major JSW Steel Ltd's Rs 19,000 crore bid to acquire it through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) route. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice S C Sharma said it will consider the appeal challenging the resolution plan afresh. 'We…think that this is a fit case wherein the judgment under review needs to be recalled and the matter needs to be considered afresh. So needless to say that while we are allowing the review, we keep all the questions available to both parties open to be argued at the stage of hearing,' the bench said. A Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and S C Sharma had on May 2 quashed and set aside the September 5, 2019, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order and February 17, 2020, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order upholding JSW's resolution plan. It said, 'the Resolution Plan…as approved by the CoC (Committee of Creditors) stands rejected, being not in conformity with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 30, read with sub-section (2) of Section 31' of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Section 30 (2) deals with the resolution professional's duty to examine the resolution plans. Section 31(2) empowers the adjudicating authority (NCLT) to reject a resolution plan if it does not meet the requirements under IBC. Deciding a batch of appeals challenging the NCLAT decision, the Supreme Court said it was 'without any authority of law and without jurisdiction' and 'is perverse, coram non judice and liable to be set aside'. Exercising suo motu powers under Article 142, the court also directed NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against BPSL. Seeking its review, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CoC, submitted that BPSL was in severe financial stress but had become 'healthy' after the acquisition and has about 25,000 workers. The May 2 ruling said that 'JSW even after the approval of its Plan by the NCLAT, wilfully contravened and not complied with the terms of the said approved Resolution Plan for a period of about two years, which had frustrated the very object and purpose of the IBC, and consequently had vitiated the CIR proceedings of the Corporate Debtor-BPSL.' Countering this, Solicitor General Mehta said this timeline, the violation of which was flagged as something serious, is extendable. He wondered, 'Suppose for some justifiable reason which cannot be attributed to the parties, the timeline is breached, would the breaking of the timeline be so fatal that a successfully implemented plan can be set aside and a direction be issued under 142 to liquidate a company which has been revived in these 5 years?' Mehta said the May 2 ruling also concluded that CoC did not exercise its commercial wisdom. To this, the CJI said, 'We have consistently held that it is not open for this court or NCLT or NCLAT to sit in appeal over the wisdom of CoC.' Senior Advocate N K Kaul, who appeared for JSW, said the judgment 'will have a devastating effect on IBC'. Urging the court to recall the order and hear it afresh, he said, 'There is clear, glaring, palpable error, statutory provisions and law have been ignored. Wrong facts have been taken into account which should not have been taken into account which were not argued or pleaded.' CJI Gavai orally remarked that 'prima facie, we are inclined to allow the review. We will give a full-fledged hearing, but prima facie it appears that the view is not in consonance with earlier settled decisions.' He added that while hearing it afresh, the court 'will not go into any other documents, just the judgment'. The bench also said it cannot overlook the fact that it involved the livelihood of about 25,000 workers and thousands of crores in investments. 'We also have to take into account the ground realities….25,000 people cannot be thrown onto the road. Article 142 has to be utilised to do complete justice, not to do injustice to 25,000 workers…The purpose of IBC is to make a company functional,' CJI Gavai added.
