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...
The Adjudicating Authority had come to the conclusion that there being pre-existing dispute application deserves rejection. The disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings.
Delay of 147 days in filing of appeal before NCLAT was condoned upon equity. The delay had occurred as the Appellant had challenged the Impugned Order before the High Court instead of NCLAT but on a bona fide basis and the time taken by the High Court in deciding the matter had been excluded by the NCLAT in computation of limitation.
NCLAT Delhi held that there is no embargo for the classification of the Operational Creditors into separate/different classes for deciding the way in which the money is to be distributed to them by the CoCs.
NCLAT Delhi held that application for sanctioning a scheme of Amalgamation is allowed as Net Worth Of Transferor & Transferee Company is highly positive and accordingly it shall be presumed that the secured creditors has no objection to the amalgamation.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal filed under section 7 of IBC becomes infructuous as recommendation of CoC to liquidate the company is pending for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.
NCLAT Delhi held that Section 96(1)(b) of I&B Code cannot be read to mean that any future liability or obligation is contemplated to be stayed. Thus, stay of proceedings under Section 19(2) and Section 66-67 is not contemplated under Section 96(1)(b)
In present facts of the case, the NCLAT allowed the appeal by expunging all adverse observations made against the Appellant in the impugned Order by observing that appearance for an entity being a separate company which has initiated separate proceeding under Section 7 against different Corporate Debtor and appearance of the Appellant in that proceeding in no manner can be said to be in breach of any Rules of Etiquette or can lead to any conflict of interest in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt. Ltd Vs Transnational Growth Fund Ltd (NCLAT Delhi) NCLAT held that When we look into the proviso to Section 10A, the expression is ‘provided that no Application shall ever be filed for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor for the said default occurring during the said period’ thus default which […]
DBS Bank India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rakesh Kumar Jain (NCLAT Delhi) The proviso in Regulation 12(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 clearly stipulates that if any decision is taken by the committee (CoC), prior to the reconstitution, which in this case is the ratification of the fees and the expenses, its validity will not be affected. […]
In present facts of the case, the NCLAT rejected the application praying condonation of delay as it was filed after 45 days of the passing of the Impugned Order and by virtue of Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the condonation cannot be granted.
