After completion of the process, a Resolution Plan was submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the plan with the requisite majority under Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLT Cuttack held that time of filing of CIRP application and not time of admission of application has to be considered for requisite threshold amount u/s. 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Hence, GST debit-note and payment done after filing of application cannot be considered.
NCLT Chennai held that petition under section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] is admitted as financial debt and default thereon is proved by the Financial Creditor. Accordingly, CIRP of Corporate Debtor admitted.
NCLT Hyderabad has ordered the liquidation of Neocortex Life Sciences Pvt Ltd after the Resolution Professional cited non-cooperation from creditors and a lack of assets.
NCLT Mumbai rejected the application u/s. 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] seeking approval of resolution plan since the same didn’t meet all the criteria laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Code read with Regulations 36A and 39 of the CIRP Regulations.
NCLT Mumbai held that application u/s. 30(6) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for approval of resolution plan filed by resolution professional of M/s. Acme Realities Private Limited stands approved as Resolution Plan meets the requirements of the I & B Code and the IBBI Regulations.
NCLT Mumbai admitted application u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] for initiating CIRP against Corporate Debtor since operational creditor duly established existence of operational debt and default.
NCLT Mumbai admitted CIRP application filed u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by operational creditor [Unisafe Fire Protection Specialists India Pvt. Ltd.] against Corporate Debtor [Digizone Technology Private Limited] since application is complete and default is proved.
The NCLT Mumbai has ruled that Section 14 of the IBC does not prevent banks from classifying a company’s account as fraud, even while the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is pending. The tribunal dismissed a petition by the Resolution Professional of Rolta India.
In the instant case, the dispute pertained to promoter and inter-corporate loans advanced to the respondent-corporate debtor Palchan Bhang Power Private Limited (PBPPL) between 2011 and 2014 for the development of the Palchan Bhang Hydro Electric Project.
