NCLAT Delhi held that each and every commercial transaction which has resulted in loss may not be labelled as fraudulent or to have been done to deceive creditors. Accordingly, since ingredients of section 66(2) of IBC is lacking, the transaction cannot be labelled as fraudulent.
The tribunal held that a Section 9 insolvency application filed years after an arbitral award attained finality was barred by limitation. Issuing a demand notice could not revive a time-barred claim.
NCLAT Delhi held that post consent affidavit representing at least 90% of the value of the unsecured creditors, dispensation from convening meeting of unsecured creditors can be granted under section 230(9) of the Companies Act, 2013. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
The appellate tribunal quashed orders permitting bankruptcy against personal guarantors after a creditor consented to grant additional time to submit repayment plans under the insolvency framework.
NCLAT held that a rights issue offering proportionate shares to existing shareholders does not by itself dilute a corporate debtor’s stake and refused to restrain the proposed EGM.
The tribunal ruled that unpaid municipal property tax backed by a statutory first charge qualifies as secured debt in liquidation. The key takeaway is that statutory charges under municipal law can confer secured creditor status under the IBC.
The appellate tribunal upheld approval of a resolution plan, rejecting challenges by operational creditors. The ruling reaffirms that courts cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC if statutory requirements are met.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 9(2) of the CST Act doesn’t create statutory charge on the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, unpaid CST dues are unsecured debt. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and order of Adjudicating Authority upheld.
NCLAT held that once a resolution plan is approved and implemented, later challenges by creditors cannot be entertained. The key takeaway is the finality of an implemented resolution plan.
The issue was whether default was limited to a single instalment below the threshold. The tribunal held that continued defaults across multiple instalments and recall of the loan justified admission of the insolvency application.
