Company Law : The article examines the Hamlin Trust ruling, where the NCLAT held that CFO appointments must satisfy Section 203 eligibility requ...
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 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 invoice discounting through the TReDS platform does not convert operational debt into financial debt. The appeal w...
Corporate Law : Madras HC held that a pending NCLAT appeal did not prevent PNB from conducting a Swiss Challenge auction after the OTS proposal wa...
Company Law : The NCLAT held that CFO nominees must satisfy the eligibility requirements under Section 203 of the Companies Act. It set aside th...
Income Tax : NCLAT held that a single application covering multiple years and company officers is maintainable in the absence of any statutory ...
Corporate Law : Tribunal held that proviso to Regulation 7A allows insolvency professionals to continue assignments already underway even after th...
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 initiation of proceedings u/s. 13 sub-section (2) and (4) of SARFAESI Act by the creditor prior to filing of Section 10 application, cannot be a ground to hold that Section 10 application is filed with malicious and fraudulent intent.
NCLAT Chennai held that claim raised by operational creditor towards performance pay cannot be taken as operational debt hence application proceedings under section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for drawing CIRP proceedings not tenable.
NCLAT Delhi held that application filed under section 43 of the IBC by Liquidator on the basis of Transaction Audit Report for avoidance of preferential transactions tenable in law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 98 of the IBC enables Financial Creditor to apply for replacement of Resolution Professional. Notably, filing of application by resolution professional is immaterial.
NCLAT Delhi held that the Shareholders or Investors in CD are not to be treated as “person aggrieved” under the IBC. Thus, application filed by the shareholder under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not maintainable
NCLAT Delhi condoned delay of five days in filing of an appeal as sufficient explanation given by the appellant for the condonation. Accordingly, delay condoned in terms of section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Thus, the prayer of the Appellant to exclude the commercial space from the Resolution Plan, could not have been accepted, nor any direction could have been issued for registration of Sale Deed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the amount given as share application money did not constitute a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). Thus, CIRP application u/s. 7 rightly rejected.
The said business transaction was carried out between the period from 11.05.2019 to 13.10.2021, where an amount of Rs. 4,48,30,421 was said to be due to be paid to him.
NCLAT Chennai held that liquidator cannot resort to proceedings under section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the purposes of the challenging direction issued to the IBBI.
