NCLT Mumbai held that application u/s. 30(6) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for approval of resolution plan filed by resolution professional of M/s. Acme Realities Private Limited stands approved as Resolution Plan meets the requirements of the I & B Code and the IBBI Regulations.
NCLT Mumbai admitted application u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] for initiating CIRP against Corporate Debtor since operational creditor duly established existence of operational debt and default.
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant as a personal guarantor, has been deliberately avoiding participation in the Section 95 proceedings. Accordingly, initiation of proceeding u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against personal guarantor duly admitted by NCLT.
NCLAT Delhi held that extension of limitation u/s. 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 not admissible since there was no acknowledgement by Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, rejection of application under section 9 rightly rejected as time barred.
Delhi High Court held that writ against OIO directing absolute confiscation of goods is not maintainable since use of the IEC of the Petitioner cannot prima facie be accepted to be merely an innocent instance of misuse.
NCLT Mumbai held that application filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Financial Creditor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Debtor is admitted as debt and default thereof proved.
NCLAT Delhi held that order rejecting application for intervention under section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is set aside and intervention petition is revived since application is not filed to derail CIRP. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
NCLT Mumbai admitted CIRP application filed u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by operational creditor [Unisafe Fire Protection Specialists India Pvt. Ltd.] against Corporate Debtor [Digizone Technology Private Limited] since application is complete and default is proved.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessee is entitled for its claim of additional depreciation qua amounts not claimed in the preceding year. Thus, claim of the additional depreciation made during the year is allowed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that revision order passed beyond time prescribed under section 108(2) of the AP GST Act, 2017 is barred by limitation. Further, extension of limitation granted during COVID is available to litigants and not to the authorities.
