NCLAT dismissed an appeal against a CIRP order but granted appellant liberty to seek a withdrawal of proceedings under Section 12A if a settlement is reached.
NCLAT set aside an NCLT order that maintained a liquidator’s status quo in a voluntary liquidation. NCLAT held that Corporate Debtor, not NCLT, has statutory authority to replace a liquidator under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Appellant contended that as the SAP did not submit the balance sale consideration within a period of 90 days in terms of the auction document, it was contended that the Liquidator should have cancelled the auction.
NCLAT Delhi held that amount having not been received from the corporate debtor, there was no applicability of Section 14 of the IBC and moratorium was not applicable with regard to any payment by co-applicant. Thus, direction of adjudicating authority for reversal of amount is unsustainable.
This provision cannot be used as right for any person to claim that he is entitled to give its opinion to the Court on any question of law involved in a case. We, thus, are of the view that Rule 8A needs to be applied keeping the objects and reasons of rule as above.
NCLAT Delhi held that no authorized correspondence brought on record which states that there was agreement between appellant and corporate debtor to cost incurred by appellant would be settled against license fee payable to Corporate Debtor. Thus, argument of appellant rejected.
The NCLAT, Mumbai, ruled that the Limitation Act applies to CIRP applications, affirming that an application for a time-barred debt cannot be entertained.
NCLAT Delhi held that dismissal of section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code upheld a case of pre-existing dispute arises out of termination of contract. Accordingly, appeal rejected and order of adjudicating authority upheld.
NCLAT Delhi rejects Vir Jai Khosla’s request to video record appeal proceedings, citing no special reasons despite fraud allegations in Essar Steel resolution plan dispute.
NCLAT Delhi rejects a plea to recall its order dismissing appeals in Paritosh Jain Vs Manoj Kulshrestha, citing the Supreme Court’s limited grounds for recall.
