NCLAT held that small disputed amounts below ₹1 crore do not justify Section 7 proceedings or penalties under Section 65 when debt is substantially repaid.
NCLAT rules that partial payment and ledger acknowledgment extend limitation period under Limitation Act, validating operational debt of Rs. 8.48 lakh against Indian Denim Limited.
NCLAT Delhi sets aside dismissal of Canara Bank’s Section 95 applications against personal guarantors, following Supreme Court ruling in Dilip B Jiwrajka on the role of resolution professionals under IBC.
NCLAT Delhi held that remote access to ERP to directors being engaged in competing business cannot be denied unless there is tangible evidence of misuse of company information by such directors. Accordingly, appeal stand disposed.
Technical Member’s prior role as HUDCO nominee director did not establish real danger or reasonable apprehension of bias. Tribunal held that the recall application lacked merit and was a belated attempt to reopen a matter that had already attained finality.
Appellate Tribunal held that the NCLT’s order replacing the Resolution Professional suffered from procedural irregularity and violation of natural justice. Replacement under Section 27 of the I&B Code must be done only through a CoC resolution with 66% voting however, since the RP himself failed to place the agenda for replacement, he could not claim advantage of that lapse. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the NCLT was directed to follow due procedure under Section 27, ensuring fair opportunity and compliance with law.
NCLAT Delhi held that monetisation by sale of units is impermissible since building plan of the project has not been revalidated. Accordingly, permission for monetisation not granted due to absence of revalidation of the map.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank doesn’t have any jurisdiction to retain the securities [i.e. fixed deposit amount] since Corporate Debtor was not part of any facility against which any amount is due. Thus, retention on ground that there were dues against another Group Company not justified.
NCLAT Delhi held that the core issue of any insolvency proceeding is debt and default. Accordingly, when debt and default is undisputedly established, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in accepting the Section 7 application for initiation of CIRP.
Appellant thereafter filed a Restoration Application (RA), which too was dismissed for non-appearance. A second Restoration Application was then filed, along with a Delay Condonation Application, which sought to explain a delay of 160 days in filing the second RA.
