The Tribunal found that the creditor’s reliance on invoice-based interest was insufficient because the invoices lacked the debtor’s consent. Consequently, the principal amount alone was considered, which did not meet the statutory threshold. The case underscores the requirement that interest must be contractually established to count toward default.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank can proceed against one or all personal guarantors of Corporate Debtor u/s. 95. Merely because bank proceeded against only one personal guarantor cannot be any reason to reject any application u/s. 95 of IBC.
Since JIL had already received the entire principal amount determined as its entitlement, and neither the interim nor the final orders of this Tribunal conferred any right to claim interest for the period preceding actual disbursement
The ruling clarifies that the appellant’s remaining limitation period revived in full once the COVID-related exclusion ended. The tribunal found that the petitions filed in August 2022 fell within the recomputed timeline. The decision underscores that the 90-day rule applies only where the remaining limitation is shorter.
The Tribunal held that the right to apply accrued in 2016 based on the last Operational Creditor invoice, making the Section 9 application time-barred. It found the lower authority erred in treating a later invoice as extending limitation.
NCLAT ruled that reclassifying corporate debtor accounts as standard cannot affect a creditor’s right to pursue personal guarantors, overturning earlier concession.
NCLAT Delhi held that the admission of the Claim by the Resolution Professional in the first CIRP against the Corporate Debtor constituted a valid acknowledgement. Accordingly, order of adjudicating authority confirmed and appeals dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that suspended directors rightly directed to pay amount to liquidation estate of Corporate Debtor since evidence presented did substantiated the determination of fraudulent transaction as envisaged under Section 66 of the IBC.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty imposed by Competition Commission of India [CCI] of Rs. 213.14 crore upon Meta upheld on sharing WhatsApp user data with other Meta companies. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that collusive bidding and bid rigging duly proved on the basis of evidence such as common IP usage; use of fake and fabricated documents. Thus, order of commission holding appellant guilty u/s. 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) upheld.
