NCLAT Delhi held that the communication of Section 8 Demand Notice via registered email address of Corporate Debtor is valid service of demand notice. Accordingly, admission of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable.
NCLAT Chennai held that delayed filing of scheme of compromise u/s. 230 of the Companies Act cannot be condoned since there was no procedural flaw in conducting the auction till the stage it was finalized by the issuance of the sale certificate.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of approved resolution plan on account of alleged fraud without giving an opportunity to resolution applicant to explain its position is against the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
NCLAT quashes NCLT order permitting financial creditor to amend date of default in IBC S7 application, ruling it improper when the original date was disputed & affected limitation.
NCLAT Delhi dismisses HDFC Bank’s appeal to exclude mortgaged units from a resolution plan, citing lack of locus and issue with third party.
NCLAT Delhi states an IBC Section 9 application by an operational creditor cannot be rejected solely because they possess a decree for the unpaid debt.
NCLAT Delhi clarifies that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is not restricted to a single modification of resolution plans during CIRP.
NCLAT Chennai rejects M.K. Rajagopalan’s appeal against the approval of S. Rajendran’s resolution plan for Vasan Health Care, citing lack of locus standi as an unsuccessful applicant.
NCLAT Delhi held that no default falling within the prohibited period of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can form basis for initiating CIRP. Accordingly, section 9 application rightly rejected.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] is not maintainable due to pre-existing dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
