Corporate Law : Explains how recent tribunal decisions shaped the rules for selling corporate debtors as going concerns, highlighting compliance...
Corporate Law : The Tripartite Agreement Trap: When Banks Lose Financial Creditor Status in Real Estate Insolvency This case memo discussed the ru...
Corporate Law : NCLAT holds that time spent in pending Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Ac...
Corporate Law : RTI inquiry into NCLT/NCLAT reveals member vacancies, lack of consolidated case data, and opaque appointments, highlighting need f...
Corporate Law : The NCLAT ruled that provident fund dues are not corporate debtor assets and must be paid in full during CIRP, prioritizing them o...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : From 2022-23 to 2024-25, appeals filed at NCLAT rose steadily, with IBC cases forming the majority, reflecting active engagement i...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : NCLT & NCLAT eligibility criteria, insolvency rules, and case statistics from 2022-2024. Updates on financial irregularities and r...
Corporate Law : NCLAT held that foreign oil and gas assets owned through Videocon subsidiaries could not be included in the CIRP of Videocon Indus...
Corporate Law : NCLAT held that a joint venture arrangement did not prevent insolvency proceedings where separate agreements clearly imposed suppl...
Company Law : A resolution applicant could not unilaterally alter its financial proposal through a last minute addendum after completion of the ...
Corporate Law : NCLAT held that the Corporate Debtor’s email offering payment subject to acceptance of a consequence sheet amounted to acknowled...
Company Law : The Appellate Tribunal upheld findings that the arrangement allowing the Successful Resolution Applicant to receive 50% of PUFE re...
Corporate Law : IBBI orders disciplinary action against Mr. S Vasudevan for alleged violations in the insolvency process of Mega Foods Products Ma...
Corporate Law : IBBI suspends IP for Failure to act during CIRP despite NCLAT directive and for Delay in convening Committee of Creditors (CoC) me...
Corporate Law : Read about the IBBI's disciplinary action against Mr. Venkata Sivakumar, an Interim Resolution Professional, for sharing asset mem...
Corporate Law : Govt issued a circular detailing vacancies for Judicial & Technical Members posts in NCLAT with detailed guide to apply for these...
Fema / RBI : It is clarified that cases admitted with National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)/National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) unde...
NCLAT Delhi held that monetisation by sale of units is impermissible since building plan of the project has not been revalidated. Accordingly, permission for monetisation not granted due to absence of revalidation of the map.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank doesn’t have any jurisdiction to retain the securities [i.e. fixed deposit amount] since Corporate Debtor was not part of any facility against which any amount is due. Thus, retention on ground that there were dues against another Group Company not justified.
NCLAT Delhi held that the core issue of any insolvency proceeding is debt and default. Accordingly, when debt and default is undisputedly established, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in accepting the Section 7 application for initiation of CIRP.
Appellant thereafter filed a Restoration Application (RA), which too was dismissed for non-appearance. A second Restoration Application was then filed, along with a Delay Condonation Application, which sought to explain a delay of 160 days in filing the second RA.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty as imposed by Competition Commission of India [CCI] on account of bid-rigging in soil testing tenders invited by Development of Agriculture, Government of Utter Pradesh against several companies and directors upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that order of Adjudicating Authority refusing approval of resolution plan justified since deed claimed by Corporate Debtor is doubtful and questionable and accordingly, asset cannot be treated as asset of Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that order directing vacation of premise granted under leave and licence agreements granted by Corporate Debtor due to CIRP is justifiable. Accordingly, impugned order upheld and additional time grated to vacate the premises.
NCLAT Delhi sets aside NCLT order, ruling that an insolvency petition can be restored upon settlement breach if the NCLT’s initial order granted liberty for revival, regardless of the MoU’s terms.
The subsequent Agreement to Sell and the Tripartite Agreement entered into without the prior leave of the Tribunal, and without informing or involving the majority shareholders or the Board of the Company, suffered from procedural impropriety and lack of authority.
NCLAT Delhi rejected an appeal under IBC Section 61(2), ruling it lacked jurisdiction to condone the 17-day delay, as the statutory limit for condonation is strictly 15 days.
