Corporate Law : Explore the impact of builder insolvency on homebuyers in India and the challenges within the insolvency resolution process. Learn...
Corporate Law : FedEx's appeal for CIRP against Zipker was dismissed by NCLT, ruling the company's name must be restored under specific provisions...
Corporate Law : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings on dissenting creditor rights and set-off claims in insolvency cases. Detailed analysis of ke...
Corporate Law : Explore significant legal developments, Supreme Court verdicts, and detailed analyses in the Q4 2023 newsletter. Stay informed on ...
Corporate Law : Explore the vital role of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in protecting employee rights during corporate insolvency, high...
Corporate Law : NCLT & NCLAT eligibility criteria, insolvency rules, and case statistics from 2022-2024. Updates on financial irregularities and r...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Company Law : The Government defines the 30-day time limit for filing representations before NCLAT under the Companies Act, with no cases pendin...
Company Law : Government response on political appointments in NCLT/NCLAT and reasons behind delays in IBC case disposal....
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that granting waiver u/s. 244(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 justified in a petition alleging oppression and mi...
Corporate Law : Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order for the purpose of interference, therefore, the present appeal is found to be...
Corporate Law : NCLAT Delhi held that when the debt invoking the guarantee falls between the 10A period application u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and B...
Company Law : NCLAT Chennai held that payments from Successful Resolution Applicant will be done on pro-rata basis amongst the creditors but the...
Corporate Law : NCLAT Delhi held that financial creditor entitled to file an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code eve...
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 trusteeship deeds are generally signed between the trust on behalf of the lenders and the personal/ corporate guarantor of the principal borrower and Creditors are the true beneficiaries of such deed of guarantee.
NCLAT upholds rejection of IBC Section 9 application against HUL, citing pre-existing disputes and claims below the Rs. 1 crore threshold. Appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi upheld the CoC’s decision to extend CIRP and withdraw liquidation, rejecting the appeal against the Resolution Professional and time extension.
NCLAT Delhi held that CoC decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor is acceptable as corporate debtor has no assets and thus CIRP Period only implies zero returns. Thus, adjudicating authority order accepting liquidation upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that distribution of liquidation proceeds has to be in proportion to the admitted claim of secured creditors as per section 53(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the same cannot be on the basis of security interest of different secured creditors.
The view that NCLT had no jurisdiction to entertain Section 95 Application filed by the Financial Creditor and the Application ought to have been filed before the DRT was not valid.
NCLAT Delhi held that as per expressed provisions of section 101(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 moratorium period cannot be extended beyond 180 days. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi dismisses Kotak Mahindra Bank’s appeal, ruling that delays beyond 15 days under Section 61(2) of IBC cannot be condoned.
NCLAT rules that Central Excise claims under Section 11E are not secured debts, upholding the resolution plan for Cengres Tiles Ltd.
The matter was heard by the Adjudicating Authority on which date the impugned order was passed recalling the order and restoring the Company Petition and the two IAs.
