National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that Corporate debtor cannot maintain appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
NCLAT Delhi affirms penalty on Ambuja Cements and others for anti-competitive practices. Detailed order upheld, cease-and-desist directive issued.
Article discusses Time Period for Filing of Appeal in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order of adjudicating authority in the light of Section 62(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and NCLAT Judgments in the case of Steam Amod Amladi V/s. Mrs. Sayali Rane & Anr and Nityanand Singh and Co. V/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
In this editorial author discusses Judgment National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the case of Steamline Industries Ltd Vs. Tecpro Systems Ltd with reference to Section 14(1)(a) and 238 of the nsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) on the issue Whether Pending Proceeding before Honourable High Court can be peruse after declaration of Moratorium in IBC, 2016
The ‘I&B Code’ is a complete Code by itself. The provision of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 cannot override the specific provision of a statute which requires that a particular act should be done by a person in the manner as prescribed thereunder. Therefore, we hold that a ‘Power of Attorney Holder’ is not competent to file an application on behalf of a ‘Financial Creditor’ or ‘Operational Creditor’ or ‘Corporate Applicant’
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Limited has promulgated that an Authorized Representative can file petition under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
The Appellant being not satisfied with the compounding of fine has challenged the order dated 30th September, 2016 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, in TP No.154/621A/NCLT/AHM/2016 (New), CA No.90/621A/CLB/MB/2013 (Old).
In relation to the dispensation of the meeting of the equity shareholders of the Transferor Company is concerned we are not inclined to grant dispensation taking into consideration the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and the rules framed there under both of which expressly do not clothe this Tribunal with the power of dispensation in relation to the meeting of shareholders/members.
