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...
The proviso in Regulation 12(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 clearly stipulates that if any decision is taken by the committee, prior to the reconstitution, which in this case is the ratification of the fees and the expenses, its validity will not be affected.
Section 60(5) makes it discernible that it is a provision with a non-obstante clause that ‘notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law’ gives a jurisdiction to the NCLT to entertain or dispose of any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person;
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Circular No. IBBI/LIQ/57/2022 Dated: 21st December 2022 To All Registered Insolvency Professional All Recognised Insolvency Professional Entities All Registered Insolvency Professionals Agencies (By mail to registered email addresses and on website of the Board) Dear Madam /Sir, Subject: Proforma for reporting liquidator’s […]
NCLAT Delhi held that as per provisions of section 31 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Adjudicating Authority is empowered to either accept or reject the resolution plan. Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to modify/ alter the conditions in the resolution plan.
It is clarified that cases admitted with National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)/National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are also required to be reported under the suit-filed cases in reporting to the CICs.
𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 “𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲” 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝘂𝗲.
The Adjudicating Authority had come to the conclusion that there being pre-existing dispute application deserves rejection. The disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal filed under section 7 of IBC becomes infructuous as recommendation of CoC to liquidate the company is pending for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.
NCLAT Delhi held that Section 96(1)(b) of I&B Code cannot be read to mean that any future liability or obligation is contemplated to be stayed. Thus, stay of proceedings under Section 19(2) and Section 66-67 is not contemplated under Section 96(1)(b)
It was C.O.C which has not taken efficient measures to complete the C.I.R.P of the Corporate Debtor Company. Even in the summary findings where the order of the adjudicating authority is quoted, it is made out that it was not the case that the C.O.C had raised any dissatisfaction with regard to the conduct of the petitioner or that there had been a lapse on his part.
