The issue involved whether a guarantee cap covered both principal and interest. The Tribunal held that default interest is a separate liability. The takeaway is that interest obligations can extend beyond capped principal liability.
The Tribunal held that a successful bidder cannot claim wide-ranging exemptions from statutory compliances. The key takeaway is that reliefs must be reasonable and legally permissible.
NCLAT Delhi held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding [CIRP] should be restricted to specific project. Accordingly, held that project wise resolution of the Corporate Debtor needs to be proceeded with as required by law.
FTI Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs MGF Developments Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, considered an appeal challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which had rejected a Section 9 application filed by the appellant seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution […]
Liquidator, in discharge of duties under Section 35, was entitled to take custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor forming part of the liquidation estate and recover outstanding dues.
Once a Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and submitted for approval under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the plan becomes binding inter se between the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant
NCLAT Chennai held that direction for issuance of valid share certificate doesn’t fall within the scope of section 59 of the Companies Act. Accordingly, order rejecting application u/s. 59 as not maintainable justified. Thus, company appeal is dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that cartelisation and bid rigging/ collusive bidding in tender is clearly established in public welfare tender by common IP address and identical bidding. Accordingly, penalty for being engaged in bid rigging and cartelisation duly imposed.
NCLAT held that where the Guarantee Deed capped total liability at ₹75 lakhs in aggregate, the ₹1 crore threshold under Section 4 of IBC was not met. The Section 7 insolvency application was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
NCLAT Delhi held that post approval of Resolution Plan, the Committee of Creditors [CoC] itself is also bound by its finality and cannot be allowed to tinker with or modify the resolution plan including mechanism of distribution. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
