NCLAT Delhi held that reliefs prayed for in the Company Petition against ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ could only be adjudicated by a Court/Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which in the present case is the NCLT/NCLAT under Sections 241 & 242 of the Act.
NCLAT Chennai held that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction to initiate insolvency proceedings of Personal Guarantors even when no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Proceedings is pending against Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Chennai held that dues under ‘Central Excise Act, 1944’ would have first charge only after the dues under the Provisions of the Code are recovered. Accordingly, application against approved Resolution Plan dismissed as Resolution Plan meets requirement of Section 30(2) of the Code.
NCLAT Delhi directs RP to admit claims of allottees regarding payments made to ex-directors of the Corporate Debtor. Read details of the judgment.
Unraveling the NCLAT Chennai verdict in the GVK Energy Vs Axis Bank case, underscoring the supremacy of IBC over RBI’s directions in loan agreements.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that deposit of 10% of the penalty shall have no effect on the order of ‘debarment’ passed against the Appellant(s) under Section 132(4)(c). Order of ‘debarment’ shall continue to operate unless an order is passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
NCLAT Delhi held that struck off of name from the list of Active Companies by ROC unsustainable as Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets, and hence it cannot be said that the Appellant Company is not carrying on any business or operations.
Read the full text of the NCLAT Chennai order in the case of K. Narayanasamy vs J. Karthiga. The NCLAT set aside the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that dismissed an application filed by the suspended director. The NCLAT remanded the matter back to the NCLT for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the suspended director an opportunity to be heard.
NCLAT Chennai held that if there is any breach of the Terms of Settlement, it cannot be construed as an issue which would fall within the ambit of the definition of Oppression and Mismanagement as defined under the Companies Act, 1956.
NCLAT Chennai held that subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan of the CoC and before the approval by the Adjudicating Authority, no modifications / alterations can be called for as IBC is a time bound process.
