The Tribunal held that the proposed reduction would not adversely affect the company’s ability to meet its liabilities. It approved the scheme after finding that creditors’ interests remained protected.
The Tribunal held that the proposed Section 339 relief flowed directly from the SFIO investigation report forming the basis of the existing petition. The amendment was permitted to enable comprehensive adjudication of the alleged fraud.
The NCLT held that insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor cannot proceed unless the guarantee has been specifically invoked through a contractual demand notice. A Rule 7 notice under the Personal Guarantor Rules was found to be merely procedural. Since no valid invocation was established, the Tribunal ruled that no default had arisen under the IBC.
The NCLT dismissed the insolvency application after finding that the agreements forming the basis of the alleged operational debt were not properly executed. The absence of signatures and uncertainty regarding execution dates undermined their evidentiary value. As a result, the applicant failed to establish a maintainable claim under Section 9 of the IBC.
While approving the resolution plan, NCLT clarified that exemptions relating to taxes, duties, and statutory compliances must be obtained from the competent authorities separately. Approval of the plan does not itself waive statutory liabilities.
Although the Scheme was sanctioned, the Tribunal clarified that the Income Tax Department remained free to investigate any tax implications arising from the arrangement. Appropriate action under tax laws was expressly kept open.
The Tribunal admitted insolvency proceedings after finding documentary evidence of operational debt, part payment, ledger confirmation, and admission of liability by the Corporate Debtor. The absence of any pre-existing dispute was a key factor.
Section 7 insolvency application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) was admitted against Martina Bio Genics Private Limited and held that pending winding-up proceedings could not override the objective of corporate revival under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Tribunal held that for a guarantee payable on demand, limitation begins from the date the guarantee is invoked and not from the NPA date. Since the guarantee was invoked in 2025, the Section 7 petition was held to be within limitation.
The Tribunal admitted the insolvency petition after finding sufficient evidence of a subsisting financial debt and default in repayment exceeding the statutory threshold under the IBC.
