NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for failure to honour repayment obligation justified since application filed within limitation period. Accordingly, present appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that initiation of the IRP proceeding u/s. 95 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against personal guarantor upheld as no principle of natural justice has been violated, and that the Resolution Professional has given sufficient opportunities.
NCLAT Chennai held that post completion of liquidation process and property of Corporate Debtor is handed over to Successful Auction Purchaser, order u/s. 33(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, directing liquidation of corporate debtor’s cannot be revoked.
NCLAT Delhi held that granting waiver u/s. 244(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 justified in a petition alleging oppression and mismanagement in the Calcutta Cricket & Football Club. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order for the purpose of interference, therefore, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs.
NCLAT Delhi held that when the debt invoking the guarantee falls between the 10A period application u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is barred by limitation. Accordingly, order rejecting application upheld.
NCLAT Chennai held that payments from Successful Resolution Applicant will be done on pro-rata basis amongst the creditors but the Dissenting Creditor has to be pad first before other Financial Creditors. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that financial creditor entitled to file an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code even after breach of settlement agreement since nature of debt doesn’t change. Thus, order admitting section 7 application sustained.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal against an order of NCLT initiating insolvency resolution process of personal guarantor lays to NCLAT. Thus, personal guarantor eligible to file an appeal u/s. 61 of IBC against order issued u/s. 100.
Discrepancies in financials prompted the Appellant to seek clarifications from Personal Guarantors – Respondents No. 2 and 3, and the late Mr. Bajrang Dass Aggarwal, who provided explanations on 25.02.2020.
