Corporate Law : NCLAT held that the CoC may decide to liquidate a corporate debtor under Section 33(2) before inviting resolution plans, with limi...
Corporate Law : This article explains why the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code places commercial decision-making in the hands of the Committee of Cr...
Corporate Law : The article explains how the NCLAT interpreted Section 66(1) to extend liability beyond company insiders to third parties who know...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that individuals investing for financial returns rather than home ownership cannot invoke Section 7 of the ...
Corporate Law : The High Court held that a company cannot shift its registered office after approval of a resolution plan when appeals against the...
Corporate Law : IBBI has proposed amendments to CIRP, Liquidation, and Personal Guarantor Regulations to improve valuation, clarify RP duties, sim...
Corporate Law : The proposed amendments require comprehensive project-wise disclosures, technical assessments, and mandatory information in resolu...
Corporate Law : The Ministry of Corporate Affairs highlighted that the IBC resolution process facilitated creditor recoveries exceeding ₹4 lakh ...
Corporate Law : The IBBI has announced contractual vacancies for Research Associates and Consultants in law and business management disciplines. T...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Bombay HC held that Section 14 IBC moratorium does not prevent deemed conveyance under Section 11 MOFA and restored the society's ...
Company Law : Kerala HC held Rule 55 empowers NCLT to accept additional pleadings, setting aside refusal to entertain further objections in a Se...
Corporate Law : NCLAT held that invoice discounting through the TReDS platform does not convert operational debt into financial debt. The appeal w...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that a Section 7 IBC application can proceed despite pending winding-up proceedings where no irreversible stage...
Corporate Law : NCLT admitted the Section 9 petition after holding that campaign-related emails did not constitute a genuine pre-existing dispute....
Corporate Law : IBBI cancelled an IP’s registration over systemic CIRP misuse, flawed valuations, non-disclosures, compliance failures and lack ...
Corporate Law : IBBI has released the Phase 10 syllabus for the Limited Insolvency Examination, effective from October 1, 2026, to reflect evolvin...
Corporate Law : The First Appellate Authority directed the CPIO to dispose of the RTI application after finding it was not decided within the 30-d...
Corporate Law : The Disciplinary Committee found that the Resolution Professional delayed admission of a financial creditor's claim and failed to ...
Corporate Law : The Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-year suspension after finding failures in claim verification, unauthorized financial deci...
In a case involving Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs. Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India Ltd., NCLAT Delhi upholds the CoC decision on replacing the Resolution Professional.
Resolution Plan meet the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations. The Resolution Plan was not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code and was in accordance with law. The same need to be approved.
DC finds that Mr. Vivek Raheja has contravened the provisions of the Code and Regulations made thereunder with respect to (i) suppression of relevant facts from CoC, (ii) examining financial capability of the Mr. Sushant Chhabra for meeting eligibility criteria of PRA, (iii) disposal of the assets of CD without the approval of CoC, and (iv) executing lease agreement with the PRA with respect to assets of CD without the approval of CoC.
Post approval of the resolution plan, any pending avoidance applications should be continued by the Assenting Financial Creditors or the erstwhile Resolution Professional as provided under Clause of the plan. The moratorium under Section 14 of the Code should cease to have effect from this date. Applicant should forthwith send a copy of this order to the CoC and the Resolution Applicant.
Statutory set off or insolvency set off was not applicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Get details on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India’s (IBBI) Phase 5 Valuation Examinations starting May 1, 2024, covering Land, Building, Plant, Machinery, and Financial Assets. Syllabus and format provided.
Explore the Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Export Import Bank case. Supreme Court emphasizes NCLT evaluation on merits before admitting Section 7 petition under IBC.
Explore ICICI Prudential Real Estate AIF’s attempt to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Nandi Vardhan Infrastructure Limited. Understand the NCLT Mumbai ruling on whether a resolution applicant’s commitment constitutes a financial debt.
Explore the NCLAT Delhi’s decision in IDBI Bank vs. Sumit Binani case, where the power vested in RP under IBC Section 25(1) to reject CoC’s proposal for renewal of bank guarantees is analyzed. Full judgment included.
Appellant-Liquidator charged fee for the period from 15.03.2022 to 17.02.2023 as per the provisions of Regulation 4(2)(a) read with Proviso to Regulation 2B(3) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016.
