In this case the NCLT’s order was set aside by the NCLAT to implead a former Executive Director of the Punjab National Bank in a matter related to Rs 14000 crore scam involving diamond merchant Nirav Modi Group and Gitanjali Group of Companies.
NCLAT Chennai rejected grant of condonation of delay in filing of the ‘Claim under Form-C’ as sufficient cause not shown and IBC is a time bound process.
NCLAT Chennai held that the sub-Contractor, would not have any contractual relationship with the owner and would not be entitled to prefer any `Claims’ against the owner
NCLAT Chennai held that ‘Order of Dissolution’ sustainable as the ‘Promoters’ failed to project the ‘Resolution Plan’ within the specified time limit.
Examine the recent NCLAT Delhi verdict in the UTI Employees Sai Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. case, emphasizing the significance of allowing objections in resolution plans.
NCLAT Delhi held that Notices were never served on the Petitioner/Respondent as there are no ‘Proofs of Receipt’, filed by the Appellant.
NCLAT Delhi held that struck off the name of the company from the register of Registrar of Companies sustainable as Audited Financial Statement of two immediately preceding Financial Year reflect ‘zero revenue’ from its operations.
NCLAT Chennai held that as the Application for MSME certificate was made after the commencement of CIRP, such unauthorized Application cannot be considered and cannot tide over ineligibility under Section 29-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLAT’s decision to end the CIRP against Bhagwandas R. Bhattad, following their complete payment of the principal amount and interest
NCLAT Delhi held that an appeal under the Companies Act, 2013 would be available to a ‘person’ who is either a ‘Member’ of the Company or a ‘Creditor’ or a ‘Director’. Since, appellant is none of these, appeal before NCLT is not maintainable.
