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 Director, Deputy Director and other officers of ‘Directorate of Enforcement’ are prohibited from attachment of any property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (Bhushan Power and Steel Limited) without prior approval of this Appellate Tribunal. The property already attached by them be released in favour of the ‘Resolution Professional’ immediately.
Central Government (CG) delegates its powers and functions under section 418(1) of Companies Act, 2013 to provide officers and other employees to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCALT) to the President and Chairperson of the said NCLT and NCALT. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS Notification […]
M/s. Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Earth Infrastructure Ltd. (NCALT) In terms of third proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 12, as we find that the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is pending and has not been completed within the period referred to in the second proviso, we hold that […]
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs Sachet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) In these appeals as common order dated 7th March, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, New Delhi, is under challenge and common question of law is involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by […]
Mr. Lagadapati Ramesh Vs Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari (NCLAT Delhi) Section 212 does not empower the National Company Law Tribunal or the Adjudicating Authority to refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the ‘Serious Fraud Investigation Office’ even if it notices the affairs of the Company of defrauding the creditors and others. However, […]
Mrs. Nagappan Swarnalatha Vs M/s. Colour Books Associates Private Limited (National Company Law Tribunal) 1) We hereby declared that the incorporation of M/s. Colour Books Associates Private Limited (Respondent No.1 Company, is vitiated by fraud and consequently, the Certificate of Incorporation dated 14th May, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, […]
All proceedings under the IBBI Code in respect of Corporate Insolvency are to be adjudicated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which has been designed as the ‘Special One Window Forum’ to tackle all aspects of insolvency resolution. The NCLT is referred to as the ‘Adjudicating Authority’.
Recently the Delhi bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has passed an order for liquidation in the case of Amtek Auto Limited. The two-judge Bench headed by Justice S J Mukhopadhya, stated in its order ‘As we have noted that more than 270 days have been completed much earlier and no case is made to exclude any period, we hold that adjudicating authority has no other option but to pass order of liquidation.’
Explore NCLAT’s decision on limitation in Sanghvi Movers Ltd. vs. Tech Sharp case. Key insights on approaching forums for timely relief and implications for IBC cases.
During the submissions, Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of ‘ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd.’ submitted that once a ‘Resolution Plan’ is approved then under Section 31 of the ‘I&B Code’, it is binding on the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the ‘Resolution Plan’. According to him, this is the most important change brought by the ‘I&B Code’, over its progenitor- the ‘Sick Industrial Companies Act’.
