NCLAT Delhi held that Prospective Resolution Applicant or unsuccessful Resolution Applicant doesn’t have vested right to challenge a resolution process or an approved resolution plan. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai grants extended period of 60 days to make full and final payment for execution of Scheme of Arrangement. Accordingly, order is quashed and extension of 60 days is allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that direction to resolution professional to release the amount to Gujarat State Tax Department treating it as secured creditor under Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is justifiable as NCLT is obliged to apply decision of Supreme Court.
NCLAT Delhi held that present appeal is not maintainable as shareholder is not a person aggrieved under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, order admitting CIRP u/s. 7 sustained.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of claim in CIRP of corporate debtor justified since Appellants failed to establish the crucial aspect of transfer of monies to the bank account of Corporate Debtor for purchase of flats.
The tribunal dismissed the Section 9 application because the applicant failed to establish valid service of the Section 8 notice. The ruling stresses that insolvency proceedings cannot commence without strict compliance with notice requirements.
The Tribunal held that fraud allegations concerning the CIRP could not justify recalling a delay-condonation order. The recall application was dismissed as outside permissible grounds.
The Tribunal found that the creditor’s reliance on invoice-based interest was insufficient because the invoices lacked the debtor’s consent. Consequently, the principal amount alone was considered, which did not meet the statutory threshold. The case underscores the requirement that interest must be contractually established to count toward default.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank can proceed against one or all personal guarantors of Corporate Debtor u/s. 95. Merely because bank proceeded against only one personal guarantor cannot be any reason to reject any application u/s. 95 of IBC.
Since JIL had already received the entire principal amount determined as its entitlement, and neither the interim nor the final orders of this Tribunal conferred any right to claim interest for the period preceding actual disbursement
