NCLAT Chennai held that application for staying auction process of Corporate Debtor not tenable since order rejecting resolution plan submitted by the appellant not objected. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the cause of action for filing the under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code arose on 16.12.2010, whereas, filing of an application in the year 2019 is hopelessly barred by time.
KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited (Corporate Debtor) is a company engaged in business of power generation. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 03.10.2019.
NCLAT Delhi held that admission of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for initiation of CIRP of Corporate Debtor untenable due to pre-existing dispute surrounding operational debt.
After the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court I.A. 961/2024 was filed by the RP before the Adjudicating Adjudicating Authority who has reserved the Judgment in I.A. 5283/2022, i.e. Plan approval Application de-reserved the same.
NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings u/s. 13 sub-section (2) and (4) of SARFAESI Act by the creditor prior to filing of Section 10 application, cannot be a ground to hold that Section 10 application is filed with malicious and fraudulent intent.
NCLAT Chennai held that claim raised by operational creditor towards performance pay cannot be taken as operational debt hence application proceedings under section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for drawing CIRP proceedings not tenable.
NCLAT Delhi held that application filed under section 43 of the IBC by Liquidator on the basis of Transaction Audit Report for avoidance of preferential transactions tenable in law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 98 of the IBC enables Financial Creditor to apply for replacement of Resolution Professional. Notably, filing of application by resolution professional is immaterial.
NCLAT Delhi condoned delay of five days in filing of an appeal as sufficient explanation given by the appellant for the condonation. Accordingly, delay condoned in terms of section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
