Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Tribunal stated that if the withdrawal of the Section 9 Admission order was upheld and CIRP were to start afresh from the date of admission of the Section 7 Application, it would have resulted in an inadequate insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor.
In the present case, a Liquidator filed an application before for release/refund of unlawful payment by the applicant. The Tribunal, partly allowing the appeal, upheld the refund of the amount of Rs.25,46,588/- and of the amount of Rs.1,08,797/- as no application for refund was filed for the said amount.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member)
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | The bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Naresh Salecha* (Technical Member) held that
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | A bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J., Dr. Alok Srivastava* (Technical Member) and Barun
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Dismissing the appeal, Ashok Bhushan, J., Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | While dealing with an appeal challenging the impugned order passed by NCLT, Ashok Bhushan*, J., Dr.
That various stakeholders are to be considered by the Resolution Professional under the relevant provisions of IBC andin accordance with law, and the same should be placed before the CoC for approval. Thus, the resolution plan was sent back for approval by the Committee of Creditors.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: While dealing with a matter seeking expunging the adverse remake made against the appellant, a
Delhi High Court: In two separate suits filed seeking recovery of amount from the defendants, being ex- promoters and personal guarantors of
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has held that if there are two borrowers or if two
“The CIRP is a time bound process where timeline has been prescribed for each step. The CIRP cannot be allowed to continue for indefinite period.”
“A claim may not be barred by limitation. It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation.”
National Company Law Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Chairperson, and Shreesha Merla, Technical Member, while
National Company Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Chairperson, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Judicial Member, and Naresh Salecha, Technical member
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai: The Bench of P.N. Deshmukh, J., Judicial Member, and Shyam Babu Gautam, Technical Member admitted
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has rejected the view of NCLT and NCLAT that once it
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has held that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction
National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench I: The Bench of Rajasekhar V.K., judicial member and Balraj Joshi, technical member has held that
National Company Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: The Coram of Ashok Bhushan, J (Chairperson), Shreesha Merla (Technical member), and Naresh Salecha (Technical member)