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...
Held that the decision in regard to appointment of IRP as RP or replacement of IRP by another RP falling within the ambit of Section 22 of I&B Code, 2016 is a decision based on commercial wisdom of CoC. Thus, decision of the CoC, in accordance with law the same cannot be interfered with by the Tribunals
Held that the Corporate Debtor was permitted to use the trademark of KKR in relation to its licensed products, accordingly, there was temporary transfer/permission to use, constituting provision of service. Hence, due and payable arising out of such service is an operational debt
Held that only creditors who triggered the corporate insolvency resolution process can be impleaded as parties. An Appellant / Plaintiff in a given legal proceeding is the dominus litis.
Held that there was no dispute on the date of filing of the application u/s. 9 of the IBC nor at the stage of notice u/s. 8 of the IBC any dispute was raised. Thus, NCLT has committed error in outrightly rejecting the application under Section 9 of the IBC.
Held that CIRP cannot be allowed to continue for indefinite period. Refusal to approve the resolution plan due to non-serious, casual and non-diligent conduct of the resolution applicant is within the four corners of law.
Held that the mobilization advance given by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor is clearly an Operational Debt and the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the claim of the Appellant as an Operational Debt.
Held that minimum threshold limit of INR 1 Crore for maintainability of application for CIRP proceedings u/s 9 of IBC includes both principal debt as well as interest on delayed payment.
Held that contention that during moratorium imposed u/s 14 of IBC, Adjudicating authority shall not pass an order u/s 66 of IBC, is without any merit
Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd Vs Par Excellence Real Estate Pvt. Ltd (NCLAT Delhi) NCLAT in the present case are considering the initiation of the CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority had sufficient reason to believe that debt itself is doubtful. No error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in refusing to initiate the CIRP on such suspicious […]
Held that the residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) (c) of the IBC provides it a wide jurisdiction and can be exercised as long as the matter is not dehors the insolvency proceedings.
