NCLAT rules that a written financial contract is not essential to prove debt existence under IBC. Oral agreements, supported by financial records, can establish debt and default for CIRP initiation.
NCLAT Delhi held that limitation period u/s. 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code commences from date of order and not dependent on knowledge of order to ED. Further, once prescribed and condonable periods expires, NCLAT has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal.
NCLAT Delhi held that no new claims including statutory dues can be allowed post approval of resolution plan. Accordingly, the belated claim of GST department rightly dismissed by the adjudicating authority.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim as a financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor filed after delay of 388 days cannot be entertained post-approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC with 90.66% majority. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant to be treated as secured Financial Creditor based on the registered charge with CERSAI in accordance with Regulation 21 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order set aside.
NCLAT Chennai held that delay of 26 days in filing of the report under Section 106 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the Resolution Professional condoned as reasonable cause of non-submission of the repayment plan and relevant information by the Guarantor shown.
NCLAT Delhi held that default occurred on 25th March 2023 which is well beyond the outer limit of section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which squarely brings the claim within the permissible scope of Section 7 of the IBC. Thus, admission of section 7 application justified.
NCLAT Chennai held that resolution professional is permitted to issue fresh Form G and to invite Expression of Interest (EoI) from new and interested eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants subject to the stipulations that the CIRP process has to be completed in a time bound manner.
NCLAT Delhi held that it is well settled proposition of law that for a pre-existing dispute to be a ground to nullify an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, adjudicating authority rightly rejected application u/s. 9.
NCLAT upheld the dismissal of IBC proceedings against Kerala Medical Services Corporation, citing D.J. Laboratories’ material concealment of facts regarding pending disputes and a demand notice reply.
