NCLAT Chennai held that there is no specified look back period for fraudulent trading under section 66 and hence losses caused to the Creditors are recovered in the event of the Liquidation and that the Directors who caused such losses are made liable to make good such losses.
NCLAT Chennai held that the word Person, is defined as per Section 3 (23)(d) of the I & B Code, which includes a Trust, therefore, there is no Fetter / Embargo or a Legal Impediment, for a Trust, to be a Resolution Applicant, in submitting a Resolution Plan
𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 “𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲” 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝘂𝗲.
The Adjudicating Authority had come to the conclusion that there being pre-existing dispute application deserves rejection. The disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings.
Delay of 147 days in filing of appeal before NCLAT was condoned upon equity. The delay had occurred as the Appellant had challenged the Impugned Order before the High Court instead of NCLAT but on a bona fide basis and the time taken by the High Court in deciding the matter had been excluded by the NCLAT in computation of limitation.
NCLAT Delhi held that there is no embargo for the classification of the Operational Creditors into separate/different classes for deciding the way in which the money is to be distributed to them by the CoCs.
NCLAT Delhi held that application for sanctioning a scheme of Amalgamation is allowed as Net Worth Of Transferor & Transferee Company is highly positive and accordingly it shall be presumed that the secured creditors has no objection to the amalgamation.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal filed under section 7 of IBC becomes infructuous as recommendation of CoC to liquidate the company is pending for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.
NCLAT Delhi held that Section 96(1)(b) of I&B Code cannot be read to mean that any future liability or obligation is contemplated to be stayed. Thus, stay of proceedings under Section 19(2) and Section 66-67 is not contemplated under Section 96(1)(b)
NCLAT Delhi held that provident fund dues are not the assets of the Corporate Debtor and they have to be paid in full of all the pending dues of the Provident Fund Contribution, Provident Fund Administrative Cost, Interest for delay etc.
