Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Find interesting rulings by NCLT, NCLAT, RBI, ITAT, SEBI, NCDRC covering legal stories on FTS under India Netherlands DTAA, reconsideration of approved resolution plan in insolvency proceedings, definition of financial debt, compensation against doctor’s legal obligations, and much more.
The Tribunal while upholding the impugned order passed by CCI dated 20-10-2022, set aside 4 key directions issued in paragraphs 617.3, 617.9, 617.10 and 617.7.
The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge’s decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.
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.
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
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.
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 23
by Swarnendu Chatterjee†, Anwesha Pal†† and Megha Saha†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 22
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.
Supreme Court held that the period of suspension of legal proceedings is excludable in computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of such right in terms of Section 22(5), SICA. Further, the dismissal of the application under Section 9, IBC on the ground of ‘pre-existing dispute’ cannot be held to be patently illegal or perverse.
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.