Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.
by Priyam Indurkhya† and Rituraj Singh Parmar††
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.”
Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea moved by the consortium and upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s order directing the consortium to pay the provident fund and gratuity dues of the employees of Jet Airways
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that Adjudicating Authority cannot direct Resolution Professional to pay lease amount under Section 14(1)(d) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during CIRP
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.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (ATE) Bureau of Energy Efficiency takes suo motu verification test on a sample refrigerator of Whirlpool India and
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is inevitable if it is filed fraudulently and maliciously for purpose other than resolution of insolvency.
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 8
The Delhi High Court held that adjudication of an avoidance application was independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and could survive Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and a Resolution Professional would not be functus officio with respect to adjudication of avoidance application.
The Supreme Court had reservation to express its opinion on the merits of the case which would otherwise affect the proceedings pending before NCLAT and stated that the findings of the CCI at the interlocutory stage was neither without jurisdiction nor suffered from any error which would necessitate interference in the appeal.
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.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that once the CoC has decided to vote on the resolution plans after closure of challenge process, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider any revised plan submitted thereafter.