NCLAT Delhi held that Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only direct further investigation in a case of closure and not where DG has submitted report showing contravention of Competition Act 2002 by parties.
The proviso in Regulation 12(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 clearly stipulates that if any decision is taken by the committee, prior to the reconstitution, which in this case is the ratification of the fees and the expenses, its validity will not be affected.
NCLAT Delhi held that as per provisions of section 31 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Adjudicating Authority is empowered to either accept or reject the resolution plan. Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to modify/ alter the conditions in the resolution plan.
NCLAT Delhi held that the Corporate Debtor are mandatorily required to pay security deposit for restoration of high tension electricity connection.
NCLAT Delhi held that scheme of compromise and arrangement is found to inflate the total payments by provisioning payment to creditors who are related to corporate debtor. Hence, impugned order allowing the Liquidator to proceed with the e-auction and not allowing any more time for consideration of the scheme proposed under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is sustainable.
NCLAT Chennai held that there is no specified look back period for fraudulent trading under section 66 and hence losses caused to the Creditors are recovered in the event of the Liquidation and that the Directors who caused such losses are made liable to make good such losses.
NCLAT Chennai held that the word Person, is defined as per Section 3 (23)(d) of the I & B Code, which includes a Trust, therefore, there is no Fetter / Embargo or a Legal Impediment, for a Trust, to be a Resolution Applicant, in submitting a Resolution Plan
𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 “𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲” 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝘂𝗲.
The Adjudicating Authority had come to the conclusion that there being pre-existing dispute application deserves rejection. The disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings.
Delay of 147 days in filing of appeal before NCLAT was condoned upon equity. The delay had occurred as the Appellant had challenged the Impugned Order before the High Court instead of NCLAT but on a bona fide basis and the time taken by the High Court in deciding the matter had been excluded by the NCLAT in computation of limitation.
