The case examined whether insolvency proceedings against a guarantor could continue after resolution plans for principal borrowers were approved. The Tribunal ruled that the guarantee remained enforceable as no actual discharge of liability had occurred.
The NCLT Mumbai held that developments occurring during the pendency of proceedings could be incorporated when they were connected with existing allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal found that such amendments would aid effective adjudication.
The NCLT Mumbai held that a personal guarantor’s liability under an on-demand guarantee arises only after proper invocation. Since no separate invocation was established, the insolvency petition was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench dispensed with several shareholder and creditor meetings after recording consent affidavits approving the proposed Scheme of Arrangement. Meetings were directed only where required.
The NCLT Allahabad Bench allowed dispensation of meetings for shareholders and creditors in a merger involving wholly owned subsidiaries. The Tribunal held that consent affidavits, absence of creditors in transferor companies, and lack of prejudice to stakeholders justified the relief.
The NCLT Indore restored the company’s name after noting that it owned significant immovable property and that continued strike-off would prejudice shareholders and stakeholders. The Tribunal held that restoration was justified subject to compliance with pending statutory obligations.
The NCLT Bengaluru dismissed a creditor’s claim submitted long after the prescribed timeline under the liquidation regulations. The Tribunal held that belated claims cannot reopen an advanced liquidation process.
The Tribunal held that meetings of shareholders and creditors were unnecessary where the transferor was a wholly owned subsidiary, no new shares were to be issued, and no compromise with stakeholders was proposed. The first motion application was accordingly allowed.
The Tribunal held that whether acts of oppression or mismanagement are established can only be determined after a full adjudication on merits. Such issues cannot be decided at the threshold stage of dismissal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that equal shareholding coupled with non-cooperation had resulted in complete deadlock in the company’s affairs. To bring an end to the oppression, it directed the respondent to transfer her shares at nil value.
