NCLT Mumbai approved the resolution plan submitted by AM Mining India Pvt. Ltd. for Uttam Galva Steel Limited as the same is not contrary to provisions of section 29A of IBC Code and is in accordance with law
Whether the ‘Operational Creditor’ can change the ‘date of default’ by confining the invoices to a later period, when the Demand Notice under section 8 includes all the invoices from the date of default and the ‘debt amount’ is crystallized based on the invoices.
NCLT Mumbai held that obligations under the Undertaking do not attract the definition of financial debt. A fortiori, an indemnity of the obligations under the Agreement will equally not constitute a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code.
NCLT Mumbai held that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the management/ownership of the Corporate Debtor shall be considered as fresh, even if the directors/promoters of the Corporate Debtor (MSME) remain the same.
The Corporate Debtor used the services/ items extended and supplied by the Operational Creditor but failed to clear the dues. Accordingly, the Operational Creditor/Petitioner issued Demand Notice u/s 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 dated 24.05.2021 in Form 3 thereby demanding for repayment of outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.1,44,07,834/-. Despite receipt of said Demand Notice, the Corporate Debtor neither replied to the same nor repaid the outstanding dues.
NCLT Hyderabad held that dismissed the application of corporate debtors as provisions of rule 43 of the NCLT Rules empowers the Adjudicating Authority, and not to the corporate debtors, to seek production of documents.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble NCLT while taking into consideration the Interlocutory Application u/s. 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, have observed that moratorium under Section 14 would not be applicable to the properties wherein the possession of the Corporate Debtor is unlawful
NCLT held that breach of the terms and conditions of payment according to a Settlement Agreement does not come under the purview of the Operational Debt as defined under the IBC, 2016 and it cannot be a ground to trigger CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
Udit Jain (Sole Proprietor of M/s U.J. Trading Co.) Vs Apace Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd (NCLT Delhi) HC held that in application filed under section 9 of IBC, 2016 only the date of filing needs to be considered and not the date of sending the Demand Notice. It is seen that notification of MCA dated […]
Time lines are fixed with a definite purpose & bidding process should conclude at scheduled time. Applicant cannot complain after failing to submit EMD within time.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
