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 rules on Uttam Galva Steels case, disallowing joint operational creditor applications and lawyer issued demand notices under IBC.
NCLAT Delhi held that continuing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] not justified as Corporate Debtor has sufficient funds to discharge the admitted claims of CoC. Thus, adjudicating authority rightly terminated CIRP of Corporate Debtor.
Appellant was notified by mail that the respondent had deposited Rs. 20 lakhs into the appellant’s account while the tribunal’s proceedings were still pending. Appellant argued that Rs. 20 lakh had been deposited without its consent and that it would be willing to reimburse the money.
NCLAT Delhi dismisses appeal by Bijay Pratap Singh, affirming the admission of CIRP against Unimax International over unpaid operational debt to Unimax International.
NCLAT Delhi held that once moratorium is declared, suspended management is also strictly prohibited from directly or indirectly deploying the funds of the Corporate Debtor unilaterally, without the authorisation of IRP, to clear any dues of any Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of gratuity with interest was fully included within the meaning of operational debt under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] and accordingly, application under Section 9 of IBC was fully maintainable.
Merely the fact that the liberty was given to the Appellant by the court and he failed to pursue the first appeal filed against the order dated 10.04.2023 did not mean that the Appellant could change the date of default at its convenience.
NCLAT Dehi held that if the CoC arbitrarily rejects a just settlement offer, the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority can always set aside such a decision. Thus, order admitting section 7 application upheld.
NCLAT Hyderabad dismisses CIRP petition due to operational creditor’s failure to validly serve demand notice, despite proven debt and default.
In the matter above-mentioned NCLAT have held that pre-existing dispute between the ex-director and its management company, could not have been resolved by the NCLT under the Code.
