The Tribunal held that the government’s decision to canalise exports of beach sand minerals was a policy measure involving strategic resources. It ruled that such sovereign functions are excluded from the definition of enterprise under competition law.
The Tribunal held that appeals against liquidator decisions must be filed within 14 days. It ruled that delays beyond this period cannot be condoned.
The Tribunal held that all resolution plans were rightly rejected as they offered values below liquidation value. It emphasized that the CoC’s commercial judgment, based on financial viability, cannot be interfered with unless statutory provisions are violated. The ruling reinforces that business decisions of the CoC are paramount in insolvency proceedings.
The issue involved whether a guarantee cap covered both principal and interest. The Tribunal held that default interest is a separate liability. The takeaway is that interest obligations can extend beyond capped principal liability.
The Tribunal held that a successful bidder cannot claim wide-ranging exemptions from statutory compliances. The key takeaway is that reliefs must be reasonable and legally permissible.
NCLAT Delhi held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding [CIRP] should be restricted to specific project. Accordingly, held that project wise resolution of the Corporate Debtor needs to be proceeded with as required by law.
FTI Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs MGF Developments Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, considered an appeal challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which had rejected a Section 9 application filed by the appellant seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution […]
Liquidator, in discharge of duties under Section 35, was entitled to take custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor forming part of the liquidation estate and recover outstanding dues.
Once a Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and submitted for approval under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the plan becomes binding inter se between the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant
NCLAT Chennai held that direction for issuance of valid share certificate doesn’t fall within the scope of section 59 of the Companies Act. Accordingly, order rejecting application u/s. 59 as not maintainable justified. Thus, company appeal is dismissed.
