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 rules limitation period for IBC appeal starts from date of order pronouncement, not upload, dismissing appeal due to delay beyond permissible period.
The Appellant had filed appeal seeking direction against the Secretary, Ministry of Coal-Respondent No.1 and Coal Controller-Respondent No.2 not to withdraw the mine opening permission in respect of Marki Mangle – I Coal Block.
M/s Concord Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) filed an application u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority against M/s Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) which was admitted on 26.11.2018.
NCLAT Delhi held that admitting application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 for default in payment of operational debt justified in the absence of any credible or plausible pre-existing dispute.
The owners entered into a Development Agreement with New India City Developers Private Limited ( Developer ) to develop a group housing project and an IT Park on the said land after obtaining the required approvals.
The law was well settled that the Resolution Plan which was approved by the CoC could not be allowed to be withdrawn and any clause which contemplate withdrawal of the plan was unenforceable unless section 30(2) of the IBC was breached.
Appellant had submitted that it was a secured financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor. Appellant’s financial debt was secured by charge on certain units and / or charge on total FSI (totaling to about 34,200 sq. ft.) in the project that was being developed by the CD.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would not apply as the date of default occurred much prior to 25.03.2020. Accordingly, held that application filed under section 7 duly accepted.
There was no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, accepting the outstanding dues as ‘operational debt’, to be paid as per the provisions of the Resolution Plan.
NCLAT Delhi held that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in approving the Resolution Plan. Since the gratuity and provident fund of the workers having been admitted in full and paid in full in the Resolution Plan.
