Section 74 of Contract Act has no application on Public Auction conducted under the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016: NCLAT
NCLAT observed that in the instant matter “there was no title defect in the Corporate Debtor”.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Can Corporate Debtor raise issue of pre-existing dispute if there is no evidence of any lacuna prior to demand notice? NCLAT answers
“The Adjudicating Authority does not appear to have committed any error in holding the alleged disputes claimed by the Corporate Debtor to be feeble as it is not supported by credible evidence.” NCLAT
NCLAT modifies Rs Ten Lakh cost for being highly excessive
While speedily and effectively disposing off the present appeal, the NCLAT modified the imposed cost from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- for the restoration of the company’s name in the register maintained by the ROC.
No benefit to Corporate Debtor, if Criminal Proceedings were initiated after receipt of Demand Notice: NCLAT upholds NCLT’s order
While upholding NCLT’s order the NCLAT held that in the present case there is a debt which remained unpaid by the Operational Creditor.
Once a document admitted as evidence cannot be objected at a later stage: NCLAT
NCLAT held that once a document is relied upon as evidence and not objected to, it cannot be rejected or ignored.
[Zee-Sony merger] NCLAT sets aside NCLT order directing stock exchange to reconsider approval
NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order and remitted back the matter to NCLT to examine the same after hearing both the parties.
Threshold limit includes both principal amount and interest under IBC; NCLAT set aside NCLT’s order
NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the S. 7 application for not fulfilling ‘threshold’ when Deed of Guarantee mentions about the interest on default.
SC upholds NCLAT’s ‘project-wise-resolution’ process order in Supertech Insolvency; allows it to complete housing projects
The Court said that if Committee of Creditors would be constituted for all projects of Supertech, it will cause immense hardships to the home buyers and will throw ever project into uncertainty.
Intent of Corporate Debtor irrelevant in establishing existence of preferential transaction: NCLAT
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
What is the rule for settlement after constitution of ‘Committee of Creditors’? NCLAT Answers
“Any settlement after passing of the impugned order and after constitution of the CoC is only permissible when the same is approved with 90% vote share of CoC.”
No embargo on Operational Creditor to file application u/S 9 IBC, even if agreement has an arbitration clause: NCLAT
The scope and objective of the Code is ‘Resolution’, and not a ‘Recovery Mode / Forum’.
Mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalty for anti-competitive behavior: NCLAT imposes 1% penalty of the turnover on Geep Industries
“…penalty @1% of the turnover for each year of continuance of the cartel would be appropriate penalty in keeping with the extent and seriousness proportionality of the anti-competitive behavior of Geep Industries.”.
To reject application under Sec. 9 IBC, a genuine pre-existing dispute must exist: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that no pre-existing dispute regarding quality of supplied goods exist as the same was not raised before consumption of the goods.
“Law will take its own course”; NCLAT refuses to interfere with NCLT’s order approving Resolution Plan
NCLAT held that that the allocation of meagre amount in Resolution Plan to Creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value but same is not the case in instant matter.
NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 15 days in appeal due to lack of jurisdiction even if fraud has been played
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that as per S. 61(2) every appeal must be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
[Reliance Capital (RCap) Resolution] CoC has power to negotiate and call for higher bid; NCLAT allows another round of bidding
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.
Do Third-party/shareholders have locus to challenge initiation of CIRP against Corporate Debtor? NCLAT answers
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.
Once Resolution Plan approved and submitted to Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be sent back for re-consideration: NCLAT
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.