NCLAT ruled that commercial borrowing with agreed interest constitutes financial debt even without a formal loan agreement
NCLAT Chennai held that appeal as prescribed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of dismissal of contempt petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, company appeals are dismissed.
The appellate tribunal held that once a company petition is dismissed in full, all interim and docket orders merge with the final judgment. No partial relief can be inferred from incidental observations after such dismissal.
NCLAT Delhi held that Form-B under CIRP Regulations, 2016 contemplates specifically permits set-off mutual credit, mutual debts, or mutual dealings between the Corporate Debtor and Creditor. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
NCLAT Chennai held that recall application under rule 11 of the NCLT Rules cannot be utilised as a camouflage to seek review of an order which has been passed on merits. Thus, company appeal lacks merits and hence dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that resignation from directorship of Corporate Debtor not a sufficient ground leading to revocation of his personal guarantee. Accordingly, application u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rightly admitted for failure of repayment in respect of their guarantee obligation.
NCLAT Delhi held that acknowledgment of liability by Corporate Debtor in its balance sheets constitutes valid acknowledgement for both borrower and guarantor. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that once a transaction has been held to a fraudulent transaction there is no limitation to look back if the other ingredients of Section 66 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are satisfied. Accordingly, appeal of appellants is dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that debt arising from advance payment to corporate debtor for the supply of goods qualifies as operational debt under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, [IBC]. Accordingly, operational debt and default established hence section 9 application rightly admitted.
The appeal highlighted that the flat sought to be released did not appear in the ED’s list of attached properties. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority should have independently verified this fact instead of shifting responsibility to the financial creditor. It set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh decision based on a complete examination of records.
