The NCLAT has set aside a Section 7 insolvency proceeding after the Corporate Debtor repaid the full pending amount, ruling that such proceedings are not valid once the debt is settled.
NCLAT dismisses liquidator’s appeal, instructs re-engagement with GST Dept for removal/disposal of seized goods from corporate debtor’s premises, sets 3-month timeline.
NCLAT Delhi has stayed the immediate announcement of a liquidator replacement vote for Edelweiss ARC, pending a decision on its “related party” status in the Stakeholder Consultation Committee.
The NCLAT Delhi has granted UCO Bank’s appeal, extending the CIRP for Shri Ram Switchgears Limited by 30 days and excluding 148 days due to IRP replacement delays.
NCLAT Chennai held that as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] there is no provision to ‘provisionally’ constitute the Committee of Creditors [CoC]. Thus, CoC once constituted is final and cannot be revised by IRP.
NCLAT Chennai held that provisions of section 60(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prescribes that question of jurisdiction has to be raised at the very first available instance and not at the stage when the proceedings have been concluded.
NCLAT Delhi closes the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] of corporate debtor since construction of flats is completed and possession is handed over to all the claimant homebuyers and there is no claimant left.
NCLAT Chennai held that time limit prescribed under Regulation 2B of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 for completing and operationalising scheme of arrangement u/s. 230 of the Companies Act is only directory and not mandatory. Accordingly, extension of further 90 days granted.
NCLAT Delhi held that order deserved to be set aside since it is unreasoned order and further reasonable and sufficient opportunity not granted as envisaged in Rule 37 of NCLT Rules, 2016 and hence the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] is duly admissible since default occurred subsequent to section 10A period. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
