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.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty as imposed by Competition Commission of India [CCI] on account of bid-rigging in soil testing tenders invited by Development of Agriculture, Government of Utter Pradesh against several companies and directors upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that order of Adjudicating Authority refusing approval of resolution plan justified since deed claimed by Corporate Debtor is doubtful and questionable and accordingly, asset cannot be treated as asset of Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that order directing vacation of premise granted under leave and licence agreements granted by Corporate Debtor due to CIRP is justifiable. Accordingly, impugned order upheld and additional time grated to vacate the premises.
NCLAT Delhi sets aside NCLT order, ruling that an insolvency petition can be restored upon settlement breach if the NCLT’s initial order granted liberty for revival, regardless of the MoU’s terms.
The subsequent Agreement to Sell and the Tripartite Agreement entered into without the prior leave of the Tribunal, and without informing or involving the majority shareholders or the Board of the Company, suffered from procedural impropriety and lack of authority.
NCLAT Delhi rejected an appeal under IBC Section 61(2), ruling it lacked jurisdiction to condone the 17-day delay, as the statutory limit for condonation is strictly 15 days.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] filed by the security Trustee is duly admissible since application was filed after obtaining valid authorisation from the lender. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
