NCLAT Delhi held that appellant doesn’t qualify as a Financial Creditor since appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving any disbursement as defined under Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
The NCLAT Delhi set aside the NCLT order admitting Athena Constructions Ltd. to CIRP, finding the Appellant was not heard on merits. While the financial creditor’s dues were settled, the NCLAT remanded the case to the NCLT to process the settlement plea and consider any claims received by the IRP.
The NCLAT Delhi dismissed an appeal by LBF Publications Private Limited, challenging an NCLT order that rejected its Section 9 IBC application. The dismissal was due to an undue and unexplained delay of 389 days in the refiling of the appeal after defects were notified by the Registry.
NCLAT ruled that a registered agreement for sale alone does not transfer ownership and affirmed that property remains part of the liquidation estate.
Citing the Supreme Court’s Jaypee Kensington judgment, the NCLAT ruled that minority creditors in a class cannot challenge a resolution plan approved by a significant majority. The appeal lacked grounds for Section 30(2) non-compliance.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that debt and default under Section 7 of the IBC were established despite partial loan disbursement.
NCLAT Chennai held that there would be no Security Interest which could be said to have been created in absence of there being any Registered Sale Deed. Thus, by not registering the MoDT, retention of title deeds of property of Corporate Debtor not justifiable.
NCLAT dismissed an application seeking to deposit ₹15.62 crore to demonstrate bona fides and stay judgment, holding that once a matter is reserved for judgment, no rights or proceedings remain pending between the parties.
NCLAT Delhi set aside an NCLT order and remanded the case, holding that the Adjudicating Authority must provide reasons for denying or refusing any reliefs sought by the appellant.
NCLAT dismissed PNB’s insolvency plea against Concast Morena as time-barred, ruling that a pending recovery case in DRT doesn’t qualify for Section 14 exclusion. the rejection of a bank’s Section 7 petition, stating the application was time-barred and the RDDB Act recovery suit didn’t reset the deadline.
