The appellate tribunal upheld dismissal of a belated company appeal, holding that limitation ran from the date the appellant admitted knowledge of the transfer. Time spent in a prior civil suit could not be excluded, and the appeal remained time-barred.
An unregistered Agreement to Sell (A2S) did not prevent recognition of asset transfer in the context of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as once consideration was paid and possession transferred
The issue concerned an incorrect prayer reproduced in an appellate order. The Tribunal allowed correction and directed insertion of the proper prayer from the application.
The appellate tribunal declined to entertain the appeal citing absence of grounds. It clarified that the impugned order would not prevent the appellant from raising all legal pleas in any future proceedings.
The issue was whether absence of a default date invalidates an invoice-based demand notice. NCLAT held that Form-4 notices do not require a specific default date and restored the insolvency application.
The issue was whether disputed receivables could be recovered through NCLT during liquidation. The tribunal held that uncrystallised contractual claims fall outside Section 60(5) of the IBC.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld dismissal of a CIRP application after finding that the creditor’s own pleadings fixed the default during the Section 10A exclusion period. The key takeaway is that insolvency proceedings are permanently barred for such defaults.
NCLAT Delhi held that Resolution Professional is required to take control and custody of any assets for which the Corporate Debtor has ownership right including the assets that may or may not be in possession of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, section 18(1) of IBC enables resolution profession to repossess shares held in any subsidiaries of Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that withdrawal of first notice via second notice under Sec.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act doesn’t invalidate the effect of the recovery certificate which the DRT has passed. Accordingly, PIRP was laid in time and hence appeals are allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the contractual grace period did not postpone the “occurrence” of default, it merely gave the debtor additional time to rectify it before triggering the contractual consequences. Thus, application u/s. 7 not being barred by section 10A is rightly admitted.
