# In the matter of Ingen Capital Group LLC. Vs. Ramkumar S.V. & Anr. CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-03-01. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00748. Ingen Capital Group LLC, the Appellant and a Successful Resolution Applicant, refused to pay…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 1 Mar 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00748
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ingen-capital-group-llc-vs-ramkumar-sv-anr-ca-72b52043

## Summary

### Background

Ingen Capital Group LLC, the Appellant and a Successful Resolution Applicant, refused to pay the upfront amount pursuant to an impugned order dated November 2, 2018, and challenged the said order. The NCLAT allowed the Appellant a chance to unconditionally agree to deposit at least Rs. 1,000 Crores. The Appellant's counsel submitted that without receiving certain information and documents, it would not be possible to deposit the upfront amount pursuant to the approved resolution plan. The court issued a show cause notice to the Directors of Ingen Capital Group LLC, namely Mr. Umesh Bhatia and Mr. Harish Bhatia, as to why appropriate action should not be taken against them.

## Facts

Ingen Capital Group LLC, the Appellant, was a Successful Resolution Applicant. An impugned order dated November 2, 2018, required Ingen Capital Group LLC to pay an upfront amount, which they refused to pay. The Appellant challenged the order. The NCLAT gave the Appellant a chance to deposit Rs. 1,000 Crores. The Appellant's counsel stated that the Appellant could not deposit the amount without receiving certain information and documents. The NCLAT issued show cause notices to Mr. Umesh Bhatia and Mr. Harish Bhatia, the Directors of Ingen Capital Group LLC, asking why action should not be taken against them. Ms. Nishtha Chaturvedi, the Appellant's counsel, sought to withdraw the Vakalatnama. The Adjudicating Authority passed an appropriate order in the meantime.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellant, Ingen Capital Group LLC, was justified in refusing to pay the upfront amount …

**Ratio:** A successful resolution applicant is generally expected to adhere to the terms of the

…

**Reasoning:** The court noted the Appellant's submission that they could not deposit the upfront amount

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that a successful resolution applicant has an obligation

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning apply to the specific facts in that the Appellant's

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Ingen Capital…
- **Respondents:** Ramkumar…

## Timeline

- **2018-11-02 — Impugned Ord…**: Date of the impugned order requiring the…
- **2019-01-24 — Opportunity to…**: The NCLAT allowed the Appellant a chance to unconditionally agree to deposit at least Rs.…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 30(2) — Submission of resolution plan](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-30)

---

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/ingen-capital-group-llc-vs-ramkumar-sv-anr-ca-72b52043