IBC requires the prioritized payment of Insolvency Resolution Process and Liquidation costs. Under the IBC, these costs must be given precedence when distributing funds during insolvency proceedings.
NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of proceeding against the Corporate Debtor u/s 7 justifiable as debt and default duly admitted by the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that the email of 05.05.2017 cannot be viewed as an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the Corporate Debtor and hence cannot help in extending the period of limitation.
NCLAT held that claim before resolution professional/ liquidator has to be based on solid documentary evidence and not based on indirect or circumstantial or secondary evidence.
NCLAT Delhi held that as there exists financial debt and default, application u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is duly admissible.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator is obliged to consider the average of the value arrived as per Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulation, 2016.
NCLT held that documents being forged or not cannot be determined by the National Company Law Tribunal as National Company Law Tribunal is not a forum for adjudication of fraud.
NCLAT held that The Resolution Professional has calculated the claim of the Appellant as per the award dated 19.01.2018. Appellant who has himself initiated the Arbitration Proceeding cannot deny that he is bound by the award which was delivered in his favour.
Diwakar Sharma Vs Anand Sonbhadra (NCLAT Delhi) The issue in this case is as to whether the delay caused in filing of the appeal much beyond the period of 45 days can be condoned by NCLAT? Section 61 of Code deals with the Appeals and Appellate Authority. Section 61(1) of IBC, 2016 provides for a […]
NCLAT Chennai held that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is not proper Fora to determine the controversies revolving around the attachment of property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
