The Resolution Professional has not filed any application for the preferential transaction as required under Section 43(1) of the Code. Hence, apparently while going through the petition and hearing of Ld. Counsels for both the parties, it is very much clear that the Adjudicating Authority on its own has recorded it a related party which is beyond the provisions contend in the Code either explicitly or implicitly.
NCLAT held that in view of the provisions of Section 238 of the I&BC 2016 the financial Creditor/ Operational Creditor/Corporate Persons can file an application under Section 7 ,9 & 10 of the I & B Code, 2016 before the respective Adjudicating Authorities even though in respect of same any proceeding pending before other forums on the ground that the provisions of I & B Code, 2016 is overriding effect of other laws
NCLAT Delhi cancels sale of Corporate Debtor to auction purchaser in Liquidation Proceedings for failure to pay consideration in 90 days as stipulated under IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations 2016.
It is for the Appellant to take remedies out of the Agreement and it is open for the parties to take legal proceedings as permitted in law. In view of the fact that the payment made was initially towards the advance license fee it was an operational debt, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the application under Section 9.
NCLAT Delhi dismisses appeal, upholding the jurisdiction of NCLT, Principal Bench at New Delhi, in admitting Section 7 Application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
IndusInd Bank Ltd. Vs Rajendra K. Bhuta (NCLAT Delhi) When the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Interim Order dated 26th November, 2018 has stayed the insolvency proceedings which proceedings ultimately were set aside by the final Judgment dated 2nd September, 2019, we are of the view that Resolution Professional is not entitled for any fee after […]
Ramesh Chander Agarwala Vs State Bank of India (NCLAT Delhi) It is true that in Ravi Ajit Kulkarni’s case this Tribunal has in paragraph 44 of the Judgment has laid down that limited notice by the Adjudicating Authority also be given to the Personal Guarantors. In the preset case, although no limited notice as contemplated […]
Aashish Kadam Vs Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) The submission which has been raised by Shri Shikhil Suri is that the document by which Secured Cash Credit Facility was extended to the Corporate Debtor is not a stamped and on account of document having not been stamped, the said document could not have […]
Once the Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Sub- Section (1) of Section 31 it shall be binding on the Creditors including the Operational Creditors i.e. the Appellants herein.
Jagbasera Infratech Private Ltd. Vs Rawal Variety Construction Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) Clause 15 of the Memorandum of Understanding specifies that ‘promoter’ shall be entitled to raise loans in its own name from banks/financial institutions for the project. There shall be no liability on the Developer for repayment of the loans or interest.” A careful perusal […]
