Martin S.K. Golla Vs Wig Associates Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT) The Resolution Plan of Mr. Wig who was undisputedly a related party, was accepted on 20.04.2018 in the 4th COC (Annexure – 16 – Page 248). Section 29A hits the eligibility of the persons to submit a Resolution Plan if a person falls in any of […]
Jayanta Banerjee Vs Shashi Agarwal (NCLAT Delhi) In the instant case, we find that the IRP/RP had formed the Committee of Creditors based on the Financial Creditors’ submission of claims even without verification, despite that one of the financial creditors had explicitly requested to defer the e-voting on the resolution of the 5th CoC dated […]
Executive Engineer of Uttar Gujrat VIJ Company Ltd. Vs Devang P Samapat RP of M/s. Kanoovi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) If the electricity consumption was for manufacturing and output of the Biscuits which is the normal operation of the Corporate Debtor, in that case dues arising from such supply of electricity during moratorium would […]
Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under subsection (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders.
MSME certificate was required to take benefit of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) under Section 240A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and it was not necessary to pursue Section 230 of the Companies Act at the stage of Liquidation, the same not being part of Procedure of IBC when the Corporate Debtor was in Liquidation.
Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) Synopsis states and it is argued that it being related party transaction, the money was to be utilized by the Respondent for day to day activities and to develop business, and that same was consideration of time value of money. We are unable to […]
The NCLAT observed that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, General Circular dated August 21, 2019 has clarified that section 232(6) of Companies Act, 2013 enables the companies in question to choose and state in the scheme an ‘appointed date’. This date may be a specific calendar date or may be tied to the occurrence of an event such as grant of license by a competent authority or fulfilment of any preconditions agreed upon by the parties, or meeting any other requirement as agreed upon between the parties, etc., which are relevant to the scheme.
We are of the considered opinion that the period of judicial intervention w.e.f 21st October, 2020 till 9th November, 2020 (the period covering the time spent in pursuing the extension application in the first instance) and 12th January, 2021 to 3rd February, 2021
Liquidator of a Company in liquidation under the Code is not required to file Income Tax Return, then there is no question of claiming refund of TDS deducted under Section 194 IA of the IT Act.
Mohit Minerals Ltd Vs. Nidhi Impotrade Pvt Ltd (NCLAT) An Advocate can issue demand notice on the instruction of his client (the operational creditor), even though not backed by the Board Resolution Brief Facts: An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed by the Appellant- Operational Creditor and dismissed […]
