NCLAT Delhi held that Form-B under CIRP Regulations, 2016 contemplates specifically permits set-off mutual credit, mutual debts, or mutual dealings between the Corporate Debtor and Creditor. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
NCLAT Chennai held that recall application under rule 11 of the NCLT Rules cannot be utilised as a camouflage to seek review of an order which has been passed on merits. Thus, company appeal lacks merits and hence dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that resignation from directorship of Corporate Debtor not a sufficient ground leading to revocation of his personal guarantee. Accordingly, application u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rightly admitted for failure of repayment in respect of their guarantee obligation.
NCLAT Delhi held that acknowledgment of liability by Corporate Debtor in its balance sheets constitutes valid acknowledgement for both borrower and guarantor. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that once a transaction has been held to a fraudulent transaction there is no limitation to look back if the other ingredients of Section 66 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are satisfied. Accordingly, appeal of appellants is dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that debt arising from advance payment to corporate debtor for the supply of goods qualifies as operational debt under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, [IBC]. Accordingly, operational debt and default established hence section 9 application rightly admitted.
The appeal highlighted that the flat sought to be released did not appear in the ED’s list of attached properties. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority should have independently verified this fact instead of shifting responsibility to the financial creditor. It set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh decision based on a complete examination of records.
The tribunal held that the resolution plan was invalid because several valuable properties were omitted from the Information Memorandum. The ruling emphasises that all assets must be valued and disclosed, and security interests cannot be extinguished without legal basis.
Tribunal upheld CoC’s power under Section 27 to replace Resolution Professional, ruling that a pending challenge to CoC’s constitution cannot block appointment.
NCLAT Delhi held that that Provisional Attachment Order has to be treated to cease by virtue of legislative scheme under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and there is no necessity to obtain any order by the SRA from the adjudicating authority under the PMLA.
