Held that minimum threshold limit of INR 1 Crore for maintainability of application for CIRP proceedings u/s 9 of IBC includes both principal debt as well as interest on delayed payment.
Held that contention that during moratorium imposed u/s 14 of IBC, Adjudicating authority shall not pass an order u/s 66 of IBC, is without any merit
Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd Vs Par Excellence Real Estate Pvt. Ltd (NCLAT Delhi) NCLAT in the present case are considering the initiation of the CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority had sufficient reason to believe that debt itself is doubtful. No error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in refusing to initiate the CIRP on such suspicious […]
Held that the residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) (c) of the IBC provides it a wide jurisdiction and can be exercised as long as the matter is not dehors the insolvency proceedings.
Held that application to initiate CIRP, against solvent and going concern company, can be denied when creditor is using insolvency as a substitute for debt recovery procedure.
Appellant submits that Appellant has served the Notice by email to the Director of the Corporate Debtor and further the observations of the Adjudicating Authority that Applicant has not placed on record the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor is not correct since in the Application itself the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor was filed
Held that the provision under Section 60(1) makes it clear that the residence of Personal Guarantor is not taken into consideration when insolvency resolution proceedings against the Personal Guarantor are initiated.
Chhote Lal Gupta Vs Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Ltd (NCLAT Delhi) Under Section 61 (2) of IBC Code, the period provided for filing the Appeal is 30 days from the date of Order. The Appellant is entitled to exclude the period for which certified copy was under preparation. Certified Copy was applied on 08th June, […]
Held that the Adjudicating Authority has not erred in passing the Impugned Order rejecting the revised resolution plan due to lapse of stipulated time period of more than 330 days in CIRP.
Held that an unpardonable lackadaisical approach/ attitude of the `Party’ in pursuing a matter before the `Competent Authority’ / `Tribunal’ is not to be accepted. Delay not condoned in such case even if the appellant being statutory organization.
