Operational Creditor cannot claim payment equal to Financial Creditor in Insolvency proceeding under IBC: NCLAT
The principle of equality is applicable only in same class of creditors, i.e., secured or unsecured, financial or operational.
NCLAT
In project wise insolvency, IRP/RP cannot seek unpaid Fees/Costs from members of CoCs of another project of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT
The NCLAT held that the appellant has no Locus Standi to make claim for any unpaid Fees/Costs from the members of the CoCs, as he is neither the RP in the project nor is connected with another project.
Liquidation| Successful Bidder of sale as going concern can only pray for necessary directions in accordance with the process document: NCLAT
The NCLAT stated that prayers in general or in a very wide term or which is too elaborate as prayed in the applicant’s application may not require any consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
Employees entitled to Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund dues even if funds not available with Liquidator: NCLAT
NCLAT held that the Provident Fund and Gratuity dues of the appellant are to be paid in full.
Corporate Debtor cannot constitute Committee of Creditors with a single Operational Creditor under IBC: NCLAT
NCLAT held that CIRP be closed with respect to the Corporate Debtor since not a single ‘Claim' was received by the IRP even after the public announcement.
Application under Section 9 of the IBC is not maintainable in absence of strict proof of Debt and Default: NCLAT
“The Proceedings under the IBC, 2016, are summary in character and a trial is not conducted, like that of ‘Civil’ matter, before the ‘Competent Civil Court’.”
‘Arbitration Proceedings’ and ‘IBC Proceedings’ cannot go on together; NCLAT upholds NCLT’s order rejecting Section 9 application
NCLAT held that an application preferred under Section 9 of the IBC for implementation of an Arbitral Award is not maintainable.
While admitting application under Section 7 of the IBC, existence of Debt and Default needs to be examined not ‘Quantum of Debt’: NCLAT
“In the instant case, the record establishes that there is a ‘debt’ and a ‘default’ and the Application is complete and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the Application under Section 7 of the Code.”
Can Resolution Professional keep claims in abeyance during pendency of Corporate Debtor’s counter claim before arbitrator? NCLAT Answers
While dismissing the present appeal, the NCLAT held that appellant’s prayer pertaining to admission of the claim cannot be acceded to in the ‘eye of Law’.
[Condonation of Delay] Filing of claim under wrong category is not substantial ground for condoning delay: NCLAT
The NCLAT rejected an application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days (about 1 and a half months) on the ground of want of sufficient cause.
Transition between the parties should be direct to construe the debt as ‘Financial Debt’ under Section 5(8) of the IBC: NCLAT
Amount taken by the Directors of the Corporate Debtor in their personal capacity cannot be construed as ‘Financial Debt’ under S. 5(8) of the IBC.
Whether prior approval of RBI is required by an Asset Reconstruction Company for participating as Co-Resolution Applicant under IBC? NCLAT Answers
NCLAT observed that the principal objective of the IBC is ‘revival of the Corporate Debtor and Resolution’ and therefore “Liquidation ought to be the last resort, keeping in view the scope and spirit of the Code.”
Go Airlines insolvency: NCLAT approves appointment of new Resolution Professional by CoC
NCLAT directed the new Resolution Professional to protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor as required under S. 25(1) of the IBC
Does NCLAT have power to review or recall its judgment? NCLAT 5-member bench answers
A 5-member bench overturned two judgments delivered by 3-judge bench which held that the NCLAT does not have the power to review or recall its own judgements.
Operational creditor cannot seek to initiate CIRP against Corporate Debtor when real dispute exists: NCLAT
The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority’s order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
Insolvency proceeding can be restored when Consent term entered between parties includes a revival clause: NCLAT
“When consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential”, held NCLAT
Personal Guarantors’ Insolvency: Commencement of Interim Moratorium
by Sharmistha Ghosh†
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”.
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.