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 Chennai held that payments from Successful Resolution Applicant will be done on pro-rata basis amongst the creditors but the Dissenting Creditor has to be pad first before other Financial Creditors. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that financial creditor entitled to file an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code even after breach of settlement agreement since nature of debt doesn’t change. Thus, order admitting section 7 application sustained.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal against an order of NCLT initiating insolvency resolution process of personal guarantor lays to NCLAT. Thus, personal guarantor eligible to file an appeal u/s. 61 of IBC against order issued u/s. 100.
Discrepancies in financials prompted the Appellant to seek clarifications from Personal Guarantors – Respondents No. 2 and 3, and the late Mr. Bajrang Dass Aggarwal, who provided explanations on 25.02.2020.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty under section 27(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 imposable since Google has abused its dominant position and has violated Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.
NCLAT Delhi held that adjudicating authority, not solely relying on the resolution professional’s report, needs to conduct an independent assessment under section 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLAT Delhi held that lease hold rights are assets of Corporate Debtor hence termination of the same by GIDC is in violation of section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Thus, appeal filed by Resolution Professional deserves to be allowed.
NCLAT Chennai dismisses appeal as infructuous but raises concerns over the process followed by NCLT in passing the original order.
The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order rejected MA No.03 of 2023. The Adjudicating Authority held that non-compliance by the Appellant of Regulation 21A, sub-regulation (2), the assets of Haldia Unit has become the Liquidation Estate of the CD.
NCLAT Delhi held that as per section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, CoC is empowered to take decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor thus resolution passed with 100% vote share directing for liquidation of Corporate Debtor [Go Airlines] justified.
