NCLAT held that the Landowners who have not invested any money and are the collaborators in the development agreements cannot be termed as a financial creditor and the said transaction cannot be considered as disbursement against the time value of money.
NCLAT, Delhi held that adjudicating authority being the appointing authority of IRP/RP has due jurisdiction to pass an order for removal of the Resolution Professional.
NCLAT Delhi held that an application by the Resolution Professional under section 60(5) of IBC, 2016, to direct the tenant to vacant the property of Corporate Debtor, permissible for carrying out the duties entrusted to the IRP under Section 18 of the Code.
NCLAT Delhi held that impugned order is liable to be set aside as resolution professional didn’t took reasonable step to get the Corporate Debtor as going concern which is mandated as per Section 25(2)(h) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Only question to be looked in Section 9 Application is as to whether the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor opposing claim of the Operational Creditor is not a moonshine defense.
NCLAT Delhi held that Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only direct further investigation in a case of closure and not where DG has submitted report showing contravention of Competition Act 2002 by parties.
The proviso in Regulation 12(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 clearly stipulates that if any decision is taken by the committee, prior to the reconstitution, which in this case is the ratification of the fees and the expenses, its validity will not be affected.
NCLAT Delhi held that as per provisions of section 31 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Adjudicating Authority is empowered to either accept or reject the resolution plan. Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to modify/ alter the conditions in the resolution plan.
NCLAT Delhi held that the Corporate Debtor are mandatorily required to pay security deposit for restoration of high tension electricity connection.
NCLAT Delhi held that scheme of compromise and arrangement is found to inflate the total payments by provisioning payment to creditors who are related to corporate debtor. Hence, impugned order allowing the Liquidator to proceed with the e-auction and not allowing any more time for consideration of the scheme proposed under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is sustainable.
