NCLT Amaravati held that no notice is required to be given to the Personal Guarantor at the stage of appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
NCLT Ahmedabad held that Committee of Creditors (CoC) has power to take commercial decision to undertake or not to undertake related party transaction during CIPR of Corporate Debtors. If in commercial wisdom the CoC has rejected the resolution for payment of salary to the Applicants, the question of reversing the decision cannot be considered.
Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Pvt Ltd Vs Celebration City Projects Pvt Ltd (NCLT Delhi) This is an application filed by the real estate allottee to the Corporate Debtor, whose claim was rejected by the Resolution Professional on the ground that she ceases to be a real estate allottee on account of an arbitral award […]
IBC does not bar a related party of the Financial Creditor from submitting a resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor and also, an application based upon over future contingencies or apprehensions was unsustainable.
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.
