Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
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.
This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.
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 matter, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority dismissing application in view of the “pre-existing dispute”. NCLAT held that when the reply to Demand Notice was not filed within 10 days, the Corporate Debtor is not precluded from raising the question of dispute or pleading that there is no amount due and payable.
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.
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.
In a case challenging the Adjudicating Authority’s order to withdraw from e-auction process and refund of EMD and first instalment, the Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority can allow the Successful Auction Purchaser to withdraw from e-auction process when the balance bid amount is due because of the attachment of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred against the order of NCLT admitting S. 7 IBC application or repayment of financial debt. Upholding the order of the NCLT, the Tribunal held that even if there is no proof of loan agreement other materials on record can prove the financial debt.
The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: While deciding an appeal filed against the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order imposing a
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.
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.