This appeal arises from an order dated 09.01.2024 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench-I. The Appellant, Mr. Puneet P. Bhatia, a suspended director of Barracks Retail India Pvt. Ltd.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench (NCLAT) while dismissing the appeal of the bank have held that Once the CIRP was initiated, the amount lying in the “No Lien Account”, is an asset of the Corporate Debtor if OTS did not materialize.
RP could not be blamed for having breached the IBC for the CoC to have approved the resolution plan of Parth with requisite majority share which action was taken by the CoC in the exercise of its commercial wisdom.
This is an Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the dismissal of the Company Petition by which the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the Section 7 Petition.
NCLAT Delhi held that even if the secured creditor proceeds to realise its security interest it is liable to pay liquidator fee as contemplated under Regulation 21A (2)(a) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016.
NCLT Delhi held that admissible of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) not justified since invoices covered under section 10A has to be excluded and accordingly amount claimed will be less than threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal had been filed by the shareholder of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor entered into Service Agreement with Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
NCLAT Delhi held that issuer raising amount by issuance of convertible debenture is clearly a ‘financial debt’ within the meaning of section 5(8) of the IBC. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
The Liquidator published Sale Notice for reserve price on 12.08.2021 fixing sale price of 6.50. No bids came hence another e-Auction Notice was issued. The Appellant submitted its e-bid in pursuance of Sale Notice 12.09.2021.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator cannot create sub-lease over properties not owned by the corporate debtor without prior permission of concerned authority. Accordingly, action to sub-lease without specific permission is incorrect and illegal.
