# 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-00838. The document presents two separate cases before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 Jan 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00838
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/gail-indialtd-vs-ms-neycer-india-ltd-ca-9a560324

## Summary

### Background

The document presents two 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. It concerns 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, involves an internal dispute between State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank regarding the sale proceeds of assets of a corporate debtor. The third case, Company Appeal (AT) No. 29 of 2019, involves Hari Sankaran as the appellant and the Union of India as the respondent, concerning the recasting of

…

## Facts

Case 1 (Gail vs. Neycer): M/s. Neycer India Ltd. filed a petition before the BIFR, which sanctioned a revival scheme. After the repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, Gail (India) Ltd. filed a writ petition against the scheme. The BIFR was abolished, and the Central Government issued a notification under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Gail argued before the Adjudicating Authority that the application was not maintainable, but the Adjudicating Authority rejected this argument. Case 2 (SBI vs. PNB): State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank have an internal dispute regarding 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

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the case of Gail …

**Ratio:** The ratio decidendi relies on the Supreme Court's decision regarding the validity of the

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Supreme Court had already ruled that the notification was

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation centers on the scope and validity of the notification issued

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, leading

…

## 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 application was not maintainable, which was accordingly rejected by the impugned…

## 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-9a560324