Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“There shall be liberty to the appellant to file a fresh Section 7 application for any default on the part of the corporate debtor subsequent to 10A period.”
“There is no mandatory requirement for factorising the date of uploading of the balance sheet on the MCA portal for computing the period of limitation.”
“If the Corporate Debtor operates as a manufacturing facility, then electricity may be treated as critical service by the insolvency professional and the dues for such services must be paid.”
“Any dispute even pending in the arbitration does not in any manner prohibit the financial creditor to take remedy under Section 7 IBC.”
Interviewed by Anish Mishra
The NCLAT noted that the NCLT had not delegated its jurisdiction to the 15-member committee but tasked the committee to act under the NCLT’s oversight, ensuring compliance with its guidance and observations.
The NCLAT held the appellant’s claim was inflated, and the Adjudicating Authority rightly recalculated the actual unpaid amount, which fell below the Rs 1 crore threshold.
The NCLAT reinforced that not all financial transactions qualify as financial debts under the IBC.
by Sidharth Sethi† and Shreya Sircar††
The NCLAT criticized the appellants for unnecessarily burdening the Tribunal with excessive documentation, voluminous records and citations of little value, thereby wasting Tribunal’s resources and acting contrary to professional ethics.
by Neelambera Sandeepan* and Srivaishanavi R.**
by Shekhar Raj Sharma* and Akshita Grover**
The NCLAT held that the appellant, having obtained a recovery certificate from RERA, qualified as Financial Creditors.
The NCLAT upheld the grant of reliefs and concessions regarding shared utilities and services in Resolution Plan to facilitate the smooth and successful implementation of the Resolution Plan.
The NCLAT warned against manipulating the IBC for debt recovery purposes, as it would defeat the code’s purpose of rehabilitating Corporate Debtors.
NCLAT held that CoCs’ resolution not to consider Resolution Plans from additional new entrants rendered the NCLAT’s orders unsustainable.
NCLAT upheld appellant’s classification as a Financial Institution and it’s liability to pay Liquidation Costs.
NCLAT stated that since the IBC overrides the SARFAESI Act, the Liquidator ought not to prefer a petition, based on the SARFAESI Act, and therefore Liquidator’s decision to classify the appellant as an unsecured financial creditor was illegal and invalid.
In the instant matter, the NCLT rejected the application, noting the approval of the resolution by the Committee of Creditors and the absence of filing through an authorized representative.