The Director, Deputy Director and other officers of ‘Directorate of Enforcement’ are prohibited from attachment of any property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (Bhushan Power and Steel Limited) without prior approval of this Appellate Tribunal. The property already attached by them be released in favour of the ‘Resolution Professional’ immediately.
M/s. Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Earth Infrastructure Ltd. (NCALT) In terms of third proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 12, as we find that the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is pending and has not been completed within the period referred to in the second proviso, we hold that […]
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs Sachet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) In these appeals as common order dated 7th March, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, New Delhi, is under challenge and common question of law is involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by […]
Mr. Lagadapati Ramesh Vs Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari (NCLAT Delhi) Section 212 does not empower the National Company Law Tribunal or the Adjudicating Authority to refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the ‘Serious Fraud Investigation Office’ even if it notices the affairs of the Company of defrauding the creditors and others. However, […]
Recently the Delhi bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has passed an order for liquidation in the case of Amtek Auto Limited. The two-judge Bench headed by Justice S J Mukhopadhya, stated in its order ‘As we have noted that more than 270 days have been completed much earlier and no case is made to exclude any period, we hold that adjudicating authority has no other option but to pass order of liquidation.’
Explore NCLAT’s decision on limitation in Sanghvi Movers Ltd. vs. Tech Sharp case. Key insights on approaching forums for timely relief and implications for IBC cases.
During the submissions, Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of ‘ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd.’ submitted that once a ‘Resolution Plan’ is approved then under Section 31 of the ‘I&B Code’, it is binding on the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the ‘Resolution Plan’. According to him, this is the most important change brought by the ‘I&B Code’, over its progenitor- the ‘Sick Industrial Companies Act’.
IDBI Bank Limited Vs Mr. Anuj Jain (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) As the voting is on, which is likely to be completed today by 5.00 p.m., we are not inclined to pass any specific order in the present I.A. No. 1857 of 2019 filed by the ‘IDBI Bank Limited’. After voting the decision if […]
DLF Phase–IV Commercial Developers Limited & Others (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) Indisputably, the proposed scheme of amalgamation between the Holding Company and its Subsidiaries is regulated by provisions of Chapter XV of the Act, Section 230 whereof provides for passing of an order by the Tribunal directing convening of a meeting of the creditors […]
Pr. Director General of Income Tax (Admn. & TPS) Vs M/s. Synergies Dooray Automotive Ltd. & Ors. (NCLAT) Conclusion – All statutory dues including ‘Income Tax’, ‘Value Added Tax’ etc. come within the meaning of ‘Operational Debt’ under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Facts – According to appellant, the ‘Sales Tax’ and ‘Value Added […]
