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.
NCLT Held that suspended board of directors were involved in running the business of corporate debtor in a fraudulent & wrongful manner, therefore, responsible & liable under provision of Section 66 of IBC, 2016
NCLT held that it is the Liquidator who has to take call on what mode of sale is in the best in the interest of maximization of value of assets.
The Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant could not be approved as it had breached the waterfall mechanism of payments as given under Section 53 of IBC and selectively favoured certain creditors without according any reason for the same and the Plan ineffectively dealt with the interests of all stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and was non-compliant of Section 30(2)(e) and Section 30(2)(f) of IBC.
NCLT held that entity issuing ‘Letter of Comfort’ cannot be treated as ‘Corporate Debtor/Corporate Guarantor’ under IBC, 2016
