NCLAT Delhi held that there is no provision under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which allows set of/adjustment/ counter claim against financial debt for calculating threshold limit prescribed under section 4 of the Code.
NCLAT Delhi held that interest cannot be termed as operational debt as defined under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and hence interest cannot be included in the claims filed under section 9 of the Code.
Held that the outstanding being of more than 2 years prior to CIRP commencement date, the relief under Section 43 of the Code would not be available. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. NCLT, with liberty aforesaid.
NCLAT Chennai held that appellant having knowledge of the proceedings fall within the purview of the term ‘Person Aggrieved’ u/s. 61(1) hence cannot be exempt from applying for certified copy within prescribed time.
NCLAT Delhi held that insolvency resolution process against co-borrower justified as obligation of the Co-Borrower is coextensive and coterminous with that of the Primary Borrower.
NCLT rejected the claim stating it was filed after the initiation of CIRP. Appellant filed the appeal under Section 61 of IBC to file his claims at any time before approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ( MVAT Act ) and Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MPVAT Act”) are not pari materia with Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( GVAT Act ).
NCLAT New Delhi held that proposing NIL amount doesn’t result into non-compliance of section 30(2)(b) of IBC. Hence, approval of resolution plan proposing NIL amount to Operational Creditor justified.
NCLAT Delhi held that corporate debtor failed to demonstrate a pre-existing dispute at the time of filing an application u/s. 9 of IBC. Accordingly, concluded that application u/s. 9 of IBC duly admitted and CIRP rightly initiated.
NCLAT New Delhi held that prior NOC from stock exchanges under Regulation 37(1)(2) the SEBI (Listing Obligation and Disclosure Requirements), Regulations, 2015 [LODR] is not required for schemes for revival of companies undergoing liquidation under the Code.
