Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court opined that the present case would fall under the Office Memorandum which stated that “where there is no cognizable offence under IPC and other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country.”
Supreme Court clarified that the substituted Regulation 30-A of IBBI Regulations clearly provided for withdrawal applications being entertained before constitution of Committee of Creditors.
The NCLAT held that even after completion of challenge mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retains its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP.
The NCLAT held that there is no law which allows a third party or shareholders to settle the claims of Financial Creditor on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, M/s McDowell Holdings Limited.
NCLT held that the amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt as it was not disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money.
In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.
In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority’s order was not followed in its true spirit.
The NCLAT granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) by staying bankruptcy proceedings against them, after the NCLT admitted S. 7 application and directed the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor/ZEEL.
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.
In the instant case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence neither submitted proof of claim nor responded to a specific communication via an e-mail addressed to Senior Intelligence Officer. This is a case where despite knowledge, the statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim.
While hearing an appeal challenging an impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing a S. 7 IBC application on the ground that the appellant was not able to establish debt and default, the Tribunal held that it is clear from the facts and circumstances the definition of debt and default is rightly established by the appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has committed a patent error while passing the impugned order.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.
While deciding the present matter dealing with mistake in demand notice, NCLT held that “the Corporate Debtor has not and would not be prejudiced by fact that Operational Creditor has mentioned the wrong date of default due to its inadvertence.”
While upholding the NCLT’s order of admission of fresh application and initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, the Tribunal held that the nature of financial debt would not change on account of breach of the consent terms.
While adjudicating an appeal file with a delay of 55 days, the Tribunal held that S. 238 IBC overrides S. 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore this Tribunal does not have power to condone a delay beyond a period of 45 days.
The petitioner alleged that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had relied upon the decision of Vidarbha Industries, which even though was clarified in review petition of Axis Bank but was still contrary to the settled position in law laid down in Innoventive Industries. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General contended that the principle enunciated in Vidarbha Industries would be liable to dilute the substratum of the Code.
The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.
Allahabad High Court said that challenge to demand notice for electricity dues, issued jointly in name of Directors of the insolvent company cannot be sustained on the ground that liabilities of guarantor stood automatically discharged on acceptance of Resolution Plan.
In the instant matter, an appeal was filed challenging NCLT's order directing the CoC to reconsider its decision. Upholding the NCLT's order, the Tribunal held that when the CoC's decision for liquidation is in accordance with IBC, then only NCLT's obligation to direct liquidation will arise.
In instant matter, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the NCLT order approving the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The NCLAT held that once Resolution plan is approved by CoC, it cannot direct modifications of claims to Resolution Plan as the Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction.