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.
NCLT
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.”
Approaching police without resorting to special procedure under IB Code to arm twist the Resolution Professional is inappropriate: Madras High Court
Madras High Court said that there is no reason why the complaint was not filed either before IBBI or NCLT for the alleged fraud.
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’.
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.
[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud
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.
[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.
NCLAT upholds NCLT’s rejection to dislodge resolution plan against POSCO India Processing Center Private Limited
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
Delhi High Court dismisses PIL filed seeking directions to draft and implement a comprehensive scheme to address the grievances of home buyers availing home loans
The PIL seeks formulation and implementation of a scheme that conclusively addresses the grievances of other home buyers who may not have the capacity to approach courts/forums to seek redressal against builders.
[Relief for Homebuyers] NCLT approves resolution plan of Suraksha Realty in Jaypee Infratech case
The National Company Law Tribunal (Delhi Bench) passed orders in favour of aggrieved homebuyers ordering JAL/JIL/Jaypee/RP to continue with adjusting the delay compensation.
Advance paid for purchase of shares of Corporate Debtor does not fall under definition of Financial Debt: NCLT
NCLT held that the amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt as it was not disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money.
Thanos’ Infinite Gauntlet Given an Endgame Treatment – Jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) as interpreted by the Apex Court
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 23
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.
NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor
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.
NCLAT stays Insolvency proceeding against Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd
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 view of moratorium declared by NCLT, all the proceedings in Court, Tribunal cannot continue on account of Amendment to S. 178(6) IT Act: ITAT
ITAT reiterated that IBC has overriding effect on all the acts including Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’) which has been specifically provided under Section 178(6) of the IT Act as amended w.e.f. 01-11-2016.
In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? NCLAT Answers
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.