# In the matter of Gail (India)Ltd. Vs. Ms Neycer India Ltd. CA(AT)(Insolvency) 294-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-01-29. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00835. The document contains summaries of three separate cases before the National Company Law…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 Jan 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00835
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/gail-indialtd-vs-ms-neycer-india-ltd-ca-64356cd5

## Summary

### Background

The document contains summaries of three separate cases before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The first case, Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 294 of 2018, involves Gail (India) Ltd. as the appellant and M/s. Neycer India Ltd. as the respondent. The case originated from a petition filed by Neycer India Ltd. before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), which was later abolished. The second case, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 329 of 2018 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 529 of 2018, involves an internal dispute between State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of assets of a corporate debtor. The third case, Company Appeal (AT) No. 29 of 2019, involves

…

## Facts

Case 1: M/s. Neycer India Ltd. filed a petition before the BIFR, which sanctioned a revival scheme. The BIFR was later abolished. The Central Government issued a notification attempting to apply the IBC to schemes sanctioned under the Sick Industrial Companies Act. Gail (India) Ltd. argued before the Adjudicating Authority that the application was not maintainable, but this was rejected. Case 2: State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank are in dispute over Rs. 300 crores collected from the sale of assets of a corporate debtor before the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Punjab National Bank claims that State Bank of India encashed the amount and did not distribute the shares to other banks. Case 3: The Union of India, Ministry of Corporate

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the application given the …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principle that notifications cannot travel beyond the scope of

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the previous decision in Spartek Ceramics India Ltd. had already

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that notifications issued under the Insolvency &

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the facts of the case to determine that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Gail Indi…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Neycer India…

## Timeline

- **2019-01-29 — Order regarding Neycer…**: The Respondent- ‘M/s. Neycer India Ltd.' filed a petition bearing C.P. No. 664 of 2007…
- **2018-04-13 — Impugned ord…**: The Appellant- ‘M/s. Gail (India) Ltd.' took plea before the Adjudicating Authority that…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 31 — Approval of resolution plan](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-31)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/gail-indialtd-vs-ms-neycer-india-ltd-ca-64356cd5