NCLT Mumbai held that imposition of moratorium u/s. 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for the acquisition of land by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority [MMRDA] by no stretch of imagination be extended against large public interest.
NCLT Bengaluru held that insufficiently stamped/ unstamped agreements do not present a bar to a Section 7 application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Thus, since default in payment of financial debt established, application u/s. 7 admitted.
NCLT Mumbai held that application u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] after three years of MSME Council Awards is beyond limitation as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, application dismissed as barred by limitation.
NCLT Kolkata held that One Time Settlement proposal given by Corporate Debtor to Financial Creditor is a clear acknowledgment of debt and default. Hence, application filed by Financial Creditor u/s. 7 of IBC for initiating CIRP against S R Timber Products Private Limited admitted.
NCLT Mumbai held that invocation of provisions of section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against corporate guarantor not maintainable as financial creditor not able to establish invocation of corporate guarantee.
NCLT Mumbai held that the private sale has to be conducted by the liquidator in a manner so as to maximize the realizations from the sale of assets. Since strategy to maximize realisation from sale of assets absent.
On pursuits by the resolution professional the earlier notices issued by the Respondent Authority in regard to the Hotel were provided and ascertained the details of the arrears of tax to be paid by the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT Mumbai approved resolution plan of Corporate Debtor [Cane Agro Energy (India) Ltd] as submitted by resolution applicant [M/s. Raigaon Sugar & Power Ltd.] as resolution plan meets requirements of section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLT Chandigarh held that since resolution plan in respect of Nav Jyoti Agro Foods Private Limited meets requirement of section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the same stands approved as filed by the resolution professional.
The Respondent had preferred applicaton under Section 66 of the Code wherein Respondent Nos. 1-2 are the suspended directors and the Nos. 3-5 are promoters qua the CD and the Applicants herein are arrayed as Respondents No. 6-9.
