The issue was whether the insolvency application was time-barred. The Tribunal held that balance sheet entries and revival letters extend limitation under law. The key takeaway is that acknowledgment of debt can revive limitation periods.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that composition scheme of arrangement aimed at consolidating Adani Group’s renewable energy and green hydrogen with Adani New Industries Ltd. and Adani Enterprises Ltd. is sanctioned.
NCLT Indore held that pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a bar to initiation of proceedings under the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC admitted as existence of financial debt and occurrence of default thereon by corporate debtor duly established by financial creditor.
NCLT Mumbai held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against corporate debtor admitted as financial debt and default thereon duly established.
The Tribunal held that allegations of siphoning ₹30 lakh were not supported by any evidence tracing funds to the respondent. Mere non-reflection in books was found insufficient to establish fraud. The ruling clarifies that concrete proof of diversion and intent is required under Section 66(1).
The tribunal held that default arose after valid invocation of the corporate guarantee and non-payment within the notice period. It ruled that the Section 7 petition was within limitation and debt and default were established.
The tribunal held that alleged disputes on quality were raised only after the demand notice and lacked prior evidence. It admitted the petition after finding operational debt and default clearly established.
The tribunal noted that the invoice was issued before the alleged execution date of the agreement, raising questions about the authenticity of the claim and leading to dismissal of the insolvency petition.
The Tribunal admitted the voluntary insolvency application after examining financial statements, bank records, and other documents showing continuing default. It held that the application was complete and complied with Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLT Chandigarh held that successive written acknowledgments by the borrower extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The tribunal admitted the Section 7 IBC petition as it was filed within the extended limitation period.
