NCLAT Delhi held that there is no embargo for the classification of the Operational Creditors into separate/different classes for deciding the way in which the money is to be distributed to them by the CoCs.
NCLAT Delhi held that application for sanctioning a scheme of Amalgamation is allowed as Net Worth Of Transferor & Transferee Company is highly positive and accordingly it shall be presumed that the secured creditors has no objection to the amalgamation.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal filed under section 7 of IBC becomes infructuous as recommendation of CoC to liquidate the company is pending for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.
NCLAT Delhi held that Section 96(1)(b) of I&B Code cannot be read to mean that any future liability or obligation is contemplated to be stayed. Thus, stay of proceedings under Section 19(2) and Section 66-67 is not contemplated under Section 96(1)(b)
NCLAT Delhi held that provident fund dues are not the assets of the Corporate Debtor and they have to be paid in full of all the pending dues of the Provident Fund Contribution, Provident Fund Administrative Cost, Interest for delay etc.
In present facts of the case, the NCLAT allowed the appeal by expunging all adverse observations made against the Appellant in the impugned Order by observing that appearance for an entity being a separate company which has initiated separate proceeding under Section 7 against different Corporate Debtor and appearance of the Appellant in that proceeding in no manner can be said to be in breach of any Rules of Etiquette or can lead to any conflict of interest in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt. Ltd Vs Transnational Growth Fund Ltd (NCLAT Delhi) NCLAT held that When we look into the proviso to Section 10A, the expression is ‘provided that no Application shall ever be filed for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor for the said default occurring during the said period’ thus default which […]
DBS Bank India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rakesh Kumar Jain (NCLAT Delhi) The proviso in Regulation 12(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 clearly stipulates that if any decision is taken by the committee (CoC), prior to the reconstitution, which in this case is the ratification of the fees and the expenses, its validity will not be affected. […]
In present facts of the case, the NCLAT rejected the application praying condonation of delay as it was filed after 45 days of the passing of the Impugned Order and by virtue of Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the condonation cannot be granted.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of Section 9 application holding that advance payment made by Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor does not fall within the four corners of the Operational Debt is unsustainable as it is settled low that advance payment is covered within the definition of Operational Debt.
