The computation of the amount claimed in all three demand notices was never explained. It is quite apparent that while the guarantors in all the cases mentioned a limiting amount of the guarantor’s liability, the bank has simply demanded from them the amount of the loan outstanding in the principal borrower’s account.
NCLT Delhi held that application u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating CIRP against corporate debtor admitted as Operational Creditor satisfied all the required criteria and no pre-existing dispute was present in relation to payment of revised wages by the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT Delhi held that non-payment of outstanding lease rent falls under the ambit of ‘Operational Debt’ as defined under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 for initiating CIRP admitted.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] deserves to be admitted once it is proved that there is financial debt in respect of which default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor.
The Corporate Debtor never contested the debt or offered any kind of restructuring or settlement plan, according to the Financial Creditor. Since the purported date of default on October 1, 2021, no partial payments have been paid.
Delhi NCLT rejected Imperial Banquets & Dining’s insolvency application, stating it aimed to evade government dues owed to DTTDC, not genuine resolution.
NCLT Delhi held that the pendency of proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT] does not preclude or bar the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC].
NCLT Delhi held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] for initiation of CIRP not maintainable since there exists genuine and long-standing disputes. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
NCLT Delhi held that alleged debt falls below the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore as laid down under section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and hence section 9 application for initiation of CIRP dismissed.
NCLT Cuttack held that after relinquishing its security interest, Secured Creditors cannot seek priority over other similar creditors during the distribution of the sale proceeds of the secured assets.
