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.
NCLAT Delhi held that remedial directions contained in earlier judgement will apply to WhatsApp user data collection and sharing for all non-WhatsApp purposes which includes non-advertising and advertising purposes. Accordingly, application of commission is allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that amount advance to Corporate Debtor with view to share profit in real estate project doesn’t qualify as financial debt u/s. 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Thus, application u/s. 7 rightly rejected.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable because of pre-existing dispute between the parties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed as being devoid of merits.
NCLAT Delhi upholds order of Adjudicating Authority directing contribution to the assets of corporate debtor since it is clearly established that business of corporate debtor was carried on with intent to defraud creditors of corporate debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that shareholders have locus standi to file appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and hence the appeal is maintainable. Further, appellant has made out case of fraudulent initiation of CIRP since both Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor are related parties.
The NCLAT upheld the rejection of repayment plans submitted by personal guarantors under the I&B Code, as they failed to submit revised proposals despite extensions, confirming the legal procedure was correctly followed.
NCLAT Delhi held that intention to defraud creditors of Corporate Debtor was based on documentary evidence, accordingly, all the ingredients under section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are attracted. Thus, appeal lacks merits and hence dismissed.
