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 appellate tribunal declined to entertain the appeal citing absence of grounds. It clarified that the impugned order would not prevent the appellant from raising all legal pleas in any future proceedings.
The issue was whether absence of a default date invalidates an invoice-based demand notice. NCLAT held that Form-4 notices do not require a specific default date and restored the insolvency application.
The issue was whether disputed receivables could be recovered through NCLT during liquidation. The tribunal held that uncrystallised contractual claims fall outside Section 60(5) of the IBC.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld dismissal of a CIRP application after finding that the creditor’s own pleadings fixed the default during the Section 10A exclusion period. The key takeaway is that insolvency proceedings are permanently barred for such defaults.
NCLAT Delhi held that Resolution Professional is required to take control and custody of any assets for which the Corporate Debtor has ownership right including the assets that may or may not be in possession of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, section 18(1) of IBC enables resolution profession to repossess shares held in any subsidiaries of Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that withdrawal of first notice via second notice under Sec.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act doesn’t invalidate the effect of the recovery certificate which the DRT has passed. Accordingly, PIRP was laid in time and hence appeals are allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the contractual grace period did not postpone the “occurrence” of default, it merely gave the debtor additional time to rectify it before triggering the contractual consequences. Thus, application u/s. 7 not being barred by section 10A is rightly admitted.
NCLAT Delhi held that remedial directions contained in earlier judgement will apply to WhatsApp user data collection and sharing for all non-WhatsApp purposes which includes non-advertising and advertising purposes. Accordingly, application of commission is allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that amount advance to Corporate Debtor with view to share profit in real estate project doesn’t qualify as financial debt u/s. 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Thus, application u/s. 7 rightly rejected.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable because of pre-existing dispute between the parties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed as being devoid of merits.
