NCLAT Delhi held that the leasehold rights with regard to the leased property are the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, liquidator has not committed any illegality in including the demised leased land in the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] rightly rejected on account of pre-existing dispute between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, order of Adjudicating Authority upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal of Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant not entertained since after submitting preliminary Resolution Plan, applicant, did not submit final Resolution Plan and even did not participated in the Challenge Mechanism. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the resolution professional is obliged to treat claims of genuine homebuyers, whose payments being reflected in the account of Corporate Debtor, at par with other homebuyers even when there was delay in filing their claims.
NCLAT Delhi held that order holding Successful Resolution Applicant as ineligible is wholly erroneous and unsustainable since SRA duly satisfied all the of CIRP Regulations. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed and set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that NCLT erred by not enforcing valid Family Settlement Agreement since such agreement is binding and enforceable for resolving family company disputes which involves oppression and management.
Tribunal held that home loans disbursed to buyers did not create a financial debt owed by the developer, as the Tripartite Agreement contained no repayment obligation on the builder. The ruling confirms that banks cannot claim creditor status without an explicit right to payment from the developer.
NCLAT ruled that GST dues of a corporate debtor, once admitted in CIRP, transform into operational debt, allowing assignment to a private creditor. The appeal challenging the debt transfer was dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator duly allowed to remove all the movable assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the leased premises since appellant/lessor never raised any objection regarding ownership of assets either during CIRP or during liquidation proceeding.
NCLAT Delhi held that in terms of regulation 33(2)(d) of the Liquidation Process Regulations [LPR], liquidator is required to obtain prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority for conduct of private sale. Here, since prior permission is not obtained the same tantamount to an infraction of LPR.
