NCLAT held that contempt proceedings can only be maintained if non-compliance is attributable to an individual, rather than company as an inanimate juristic person
NCLAT Chennai dismisses appeal in P. Jayagovind vs Bijoy Prabhakaran case due to full implementation of the resolution plan under IBC Sections 30 & 31.
NCLAT Chennai rules against Lanco Infratech Employees Welfare Association’s claim for retention allowance, emphasizing lack of legal entitlement.
NCLAT dismisses appeal challenging rejection of a resolution plan after a fresh plan was accepted, rendering the appeal infructuous.
NCLAT Delhi held that based on recommendation made by the resolution professional, application under section 95 of IBC, 2016 is admitted. Notably, also held that application under section 95 is preferred within prescribed time limit.
NCLAT Chennai owing to the situation prevailing due to Covid-19, the earnest money should not be permitted to be forfeited, where a subsequent fresh auction has taken place and the property has been sold at a higher price.
NCLAT Chennai quashes NCLT’s order and grants Dunzo Digital Pvt. Ltd. a final chance to file objections to proceedings under Section 9 of the I&B Code.
It was the case of the appellant that he acquired rights from the respondent in pursuant to the agreement dated 07.09.2006. Property (shop) in question were part of government grant hence does not require registration.
Appellant-personal guarantor had signed a deed of guarantee for a corporate debtor’s credit facilities. Following the debtor’s default, the bank issued a Section 13(2) notice demanding Rs. 32.60 crore from the appellant.
On an Application filed u/s. 7 by the UCO Bank against the Corporate Debtor M/s. Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced by Order dated 27.03.2019.
