Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that compensatory allowances form part of “ordinary wages” for overtime calculation. Executive circular...
Company Law : Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercisable in absence of any p...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that Resolution Professional is required to take control and custody of any assets for which the Corporate Debtor...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that amount advance to Corporate Debtor with view to share profit in real estate project doesn’t qualify as fin...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that balance sheet entries are reliable evidence of existence of financial debt. Accordingly, since debt and defa...
The Supreme Court held that compensatory allowances form part of “ordinary wages” for overtime calculation. Executive circulars cannot override the clear mandate of Section 59(2).
Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercisable in absence of any perversity in the order passed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
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 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 balance sheet entries are reliable evidence of existence of financial debt. Accordingly, since debt and default against Corporate Debtor established, admission of application u/s. 7 of IBC justified.
NCLAT Delhi upholds order of Adjudicating Authority directing contribution to the assets of corporate debtor since it is clearly established that business of corporate debtor was carried on with intent to defraud creditors of corporate debtor.
NCLAT Delhi held that shareholders have locus standi to file appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and hence the appeal is maintainable. Further, appellant has made out case of fraudulent initiation of CIRP since both Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor are related parties.
NCLAT Delhi held that resignation from directorship of Corporate Debtor not a sufficient ground leading to revocation of his personal guarantee. Accordingly, application u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rightly admitted for failure of repayment in respect of their guarantee obligation.
NCLAT Delhi held that acknowledgment of liability by Corporate Debtor in its balance sheets constitutes valid acknowledgement for both borrower and guarantor. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
Orissa High Court held that filing of writ petition challenging adjudication order under section 73 of the GST Act after inordinate delay of around one year with adequate reasoning for inordinate delay cannot be entertained. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
