NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of CIRP under section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 unsustainable as dispute regarding credit/refund of the service tax amount existed prior to the issue of demand notice under section 8.
NCLAT Delhi held that the settlement entered into by KNCEL (Kiratpur Ner Chowk Expressway Limited) and NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) for foreclosure of the Concession Agreement relating to Kiratpur – Ner Chowk Project under the MoRTH Guidelines is in accordance with the approved Resolution Framework
NCLAT Chennai held that there is `no Law’, which specifically envisages that unless, the `Legal Representatives’, become `Members’ of a `Company’, the `Legal Representatives’, of the `Deceased’, shall not become a `Party’, to the `Proceedings’, under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of the appellant, to Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) during the process of CIRP, duly rejected as the claim was based on MOU/ agreement which were forged document.
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.
