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...
NCLAT held that Banker’s Certificate is not mandatorily required to trigger CIRP under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 (Code).
Presently, the examination fee of Rs. 1,500+ applicable GST, i.e. Rs.1,770 is payable per enrolment for each of these exams. It has been decided that the fee of Rs. 5,000+ applicable GST, i.e. Rs. 5,900 for the LIE or Valuation Examinations shall be payable for each enrolment on or after 01st October 2022.
Govt has notified that for an application for fast track corporate insolvency resolution process may be made also by a Startup (other than the partnership firm) as defined vide Notification No. G.S.R. 127(E), dated the 19th February, 2019 MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 30th August, 2022 S.O. 4142(E).—In exercise of the powers […]
Held that once the Liquidator applies to NCLT, to adopt particular mode of sale of movable and immovable assets of the Corporate Debtor, which is approved by NCLT, there is no provision in the IBC that empowers NCLAT to suo motu conduct a judicial review of the said decision.
SC held that refiling of Application after curing defects in Application not amount to fresh filing of Application for counting limitation.
Held that application u/s 7 for triggering CIRP may be initiated by a financial creditor either individually or jointly with other financial creditors with total minimum threshold for initiation of CIRP being fixed at INR 1 Crore.
Held that the decision in regard to appointment of IRP as RP or replacement of IRP by another RP falling within the ambit of Section 22 of I&B Code, 2016 is a decision based on commercial wisdom of CoC. Thus, decision of the CoC, in accordance with law the same cannot be interfered with by the Tribunals
SC held that IBC would prevail over Customs Act, and once moratorium is imposed in terms of sections 14 or 33(5) of Code, the customs authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine quantum of customs duty and other levies.
Gayatri Projects Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) A reading of provisions under section 13 and 14 of IBC Code along with decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, clearly shows that once the proceedings have commenced by institution of application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code, the continuance of the pending proceedings […]
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Under section 13 of the Code, the adjudicating authority after admission of the application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the IBC Code shall declare a moratorium which shall include the prohibition of the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against […]
