NCLAT Delhi held that termination of concession agreement has no relation with default in repayment of dues of the Financial creditor. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC rightly admitted against Supreme Manor Wada Bhiwandi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] as debt and default established.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand made by the EPFO on the basis of an inspection report made after initiation of moratorium is not enforceable as Section 14(1) of the IBC prohibits the initiation or continuation of assessment during the moratorium period.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of wages and salaries after the issuance of the layoff notice rightly rejected since the appellant workmen due to issuance of the layoff notice has not worked after issuance of this layoff notice. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi Held that a written agreement is not a condition precedent to prove the existence of a financial debt. Accordingly, CIRP application u/s. 7 of IBC duly admitted as debt and default proved.
NCLAT Delhi held that suspended directors, who invested about 5.5 crores and having 51% equity in Corporate Debtor, cannot claim that they were not aware about initiation of CIRP. Accordingly, observation of Adjudicating Authority that Suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor were not cooperating with the IRP/RP/Liquidator was justifiable.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand of EPFO raised on the basis of inspection report dated 10.05.2023 and assessment order dated 25.09.2023 which is subsequent to initiation of CIRP on 17.02.2023 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal set aside.
The NCLAT Delhi reversed a lower court’s refusal to extend the CIRP for Torque Automotive, granting a 45-day final extension to allow the Committee of Creditors to finalize a resolution plan, prioritizing a corporate debtor’s revival over liquidation.
Held that the statutory right of a Financial Creditor bestowed u/s. 7 of the ‘IBC’ cannot be curtailed to any ‘Inter-Creditor Agreement’ or Consortium agreement executed between the lender banks, as the same was only for regulating the inter se affairs of the consortium and the OTS proposal cannot be claimed by a borrower as a matter of right.
NCLAT Delhi held that operational debt in terms of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code doesn’t include interest unless interest is payable in terms of any agreement among parties
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of application under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable since application filed after expiry of period of three years is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
