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 dismissed Liquidator’s appeal in Rathi Super Steel Ltd case, ruling that seized amount adjusted before CIRP initiation is not an asset of the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Chennai held that order not falling under Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] is not appealable under section 61 of the IBC and accordingly appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
NCLAT clarifies that operational creditors cannot access parts of a resolution plan before its approval but retain the right to file objections during CIRP.
NCLAT Chennai held that rejection of application justified since disputed property claimed by the appellant will remain part of Corporate Debtor assets during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] proceedings.
NCLAT Delhi held that belated filing of contingent claims (i.e. claims arising from damages and breach of contract) is rightly rejected by the resolution professional. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that after initiation of moratorium under section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC], no assessment proceedings can be continued by EPFO. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Assessee-company had challenged an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ) which dismissed its Section 9 application under the IBC, against the corporate debtor for being time-barred
NCLAT Chennai held that fees is payable to Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) from the date he took charge of IRP till the date of appointment of new Resolution Professional. Accordingly, directed to pay additional fees from 53 days.
NCLT Kolkata held that a secured creditor having possession over the assets of the corporate debtor does not lose its rights to file an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The bills so assigned to the Financial Creditors and the amounts against such bills was disbursed. In the process of transactions, the Applicants stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 2,34,17,965/- on various dates.
