NCLAT Chennai held that time limit prescribed under Regulation 2B of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 for completing and operationalising scheme of arrangement u/s. 230 of the Companies Act is only directory and not mandatory. Accordingly, extension of further 90 days granted.
NCLAT Delhi held that order deserved to be set aside since it is unreasoned order and further reasonable and sufficient opportunity not granted as envisaged in Rule 37 of NCLT Rules, 2016 and hence the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] is duly admissible since default occurred subsequent to section 10A period. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
NCLAT allows CIRP withdrawal for SE Transstadia Pvt. Ltd. after Bank of Baroda and other lenders agree to a Gujarat government-backed revival and restructuring plan.
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.
