NCLT Kochi held that insolvency proceedings can simultaneously continue against both the principal borrower and corporate guarantor under the IBC. The Tribunal admitted Axis Bank’s Section 7 petition after finding debt and default established.
The issue involved allegations of mismanagement framed under company law provisions. The Tribunal held that the core dispute arose from contractual obligations under a term sheet. It referred the matter to arbitration, emphasizing that such disputes must follow agreed dispute resolution mechanisms.
The issue was whether delayed charges without supporting records could qualify as operational debt. The Tribunal ruled that absence of invoices and ledger entries made the claim unascertained and disputed.
Bank of India Vs Neurostar Hospital Private Limited (NCLT Mumbai) The application was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by a financial creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The total amount claimed to be in default was approximately ₹28.51 crore, with the date […]
The issue involved rejection of a delayed claim in bankruptcy proceedings. The Tribunal held that concealment of material facts by the debtor prevented timely filing. It ruled that such delay could be condoned when sufficiently explained and directed admission of the claim.
The tribunal permitted substitution of original petitioners with a new shareholder after transfer of shares. The key takeaway is that class action proceedings can continue with a successor shareholder if ownership changes.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Debtor [Trivenimudrai Projects Limited] admitted since debt and default thereon stands established.
The Tribunal held that default under the loan agreement existed independently of the arbitral award challenge. It ruled that absence of a stay on the award allows initiation of insolvency proceedings.
The Tribunal held that allowing retention of the amount would amount to preferential recovery. It directed refund to the insolvency estate and limited the claim to the admitted amount.
The case examined default arising from a loan backed by corporate guarantee. The Tribunal found that non-payment triggered insolvency proceedings. The decision highlights consequences of guarantee invocation.
