NCLAT clarifies security deposits under MoUs without borrowing effect do not qualify as financial debt under IBC. Read the detailed analysis and judgment highlights.
NCLAT rules charge non-registration under Section 77 doesn’t negate secured creditor status. Upholds claim, differentiating CIRP and liquidation.
NCLAT Delhi denies CoC seat to assignee of related party debt post-CIRP. Ruling emphasizes preventing CIRP sabotage and protecting creditor rights.
NCLAT Delhi held that by approval of the Resolution Plan, all dues and claims of pre-CIRP stand extinguished. Thus, appellant is not entitled for recovering any dues from respondent which relate to pre-CIRP period.
NCLAT Delhi held that invocation of guarantee subsequent to initiation of CIRP cannot be the base for any claim to be admitted in the CIRP. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order passed by adjudicating authority set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that Liquidator is jurisdictionally empowered to proceed with private sale of Corporate Debtor by adopting Swiss Challenge Mechanism. Thus, adjudicating authority didn’t commit any error in allowing application filed by Liquidator.
NCLAT Delhi held that trusteeship deeds are generally signed between the trust on behalf of the lenders and the personal/ corporate guarantor of the principal borrower and Creditors are the true beneficiaries of such deed of guarantee.
NCLAT upholds rejection of IBC Section 9 application against HUL, citing pre-existing disputes and claims below the Rs. 1 crore threshold. Appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi upheld the CoC’s decision to extend CIRP and withdraw liquidation, rejecting the appeal against the Resolution Professional and time extension.
NCLAT Delhi held that CoC decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor is acceptable as corporate debtor has no assets and thus CIRP Period only implies zero returns. Thus, adjudicating authority order accepting liquidation upheld.
