The IRP sent a report in which two more unsecured financial creditors, the appellants herein, were included in the CoC on the ground that they had given personal guarantee to the applicant bank for securing the loan advanced to the corporate debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that since other materials on record prove the disbursement of amount and default, non-stamping of promissory note is inconsequential and could not be a reason to reject Section 7 application. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
RP had excluded assessee from the COC as RP was empowered to decide about the status of a creditor as related party and the findings of RP and AA concluded assessee as related party in terms of provisions of Section 5 (24) of the Code.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be attracted where no transaction was made by the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that if CIRP is initiated fraudulently for any purpose other than the resolution of insolvency or liquidation it can be set aside. Accordingly, CIRP set aside and appeal allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 admissible when interest amount demanded by Financial Creditor is more than INR 1 Crore since financial debt means a debt alongwith interest.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) of operational creditor not maintainable due to pre-existing dispute. Further, there was no requirement for the Adjudicating Authority to go under the skin of dispute
NCLAT Delhi held that held that considering the text of Section 60(5)(c) of IBC liquidators can ask for the refund of the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) amount, which was given by the Corporate Debtor towards margin money for securing a PBG.
As per the agreements, assessee had paid their respective consideration amount. As per the aforesaid flat buyer Agreement, the Corporate Debtor had promised to deliver the possession of the flats within a prescribed timeline.
NCLAT Chennai held that application for staying auction process of Corporate Debtor not tenable since order rejecting resolution plan submitted by the appellant not objected. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
