NCLAT Delhi held that beneficiary under the personal guarantee is fully entitled to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against personal guarantor u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
NCLAT Delhi held that issuance of notice under rule 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 doesn’t amount to invoking of guarantee.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of resolution plan of appellant justified as CoC deliberated and discussed the Resolution Plan of the Appellant. Thus, resolution plan with 97% vote share of CoC rightly approved.
When the corporate debtor failed to pay the outstanding power obligation, appellant subsequently cut off the electrical service. On the condition that the outstanding balance be paid, the power connection was restored. The supply was not discontinued.
NCLAT Delhi ruled that a single homebuyer cannot challenge a resolution plan approved by the CoC. The decision follows Supreme Court precedents on insolvency cases.
The plain reading of the above provisions of Section 60(5)(c) clearly indicates that the NCLT is empowered to adjudicate any question of priorities or any question of law or facts arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of belated claim by liquidator needs to be challenged under section 42 of the IBC. Relief cannot be seeked by invoking provisions of section 60(5) of IBC as remedy u/s. 42 not restored.
NCLAT Delhi quashes CIRP against Alcuris Healthcare, ruling profit-sharing disputes do not constitute operational debt under IBC. Read the key legal findings.
Notably, the Appellant filed the application under Section 9 of the Code on 18.08.2020 for an amount of Rs. 2,77,68,000/- allegedly due and payable by the Corporate Debtor (CD).
NCLAT Delhi held that any dispute even pending in the arbitration does not in any manner prohibit the financial creditor to take remedy under Section 7. Thus, appeal dismissed and held that application u/s. 7 duly admitted.
