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 tribunal held that the resolution plan was invalid because several valuable properties were omitted from the Information Memorandum. The ruling emphasises that all assets must be valued and disclosed, and security interests cannot be extinguished without legal basis.
Tripura High Court held that an order accepting bond under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC]from the accused doesn’t amount to a grant of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is disposed of.
NCLAT Delhi held that direction to resolution professional to release the amount to Gujarat State Tax Department treating it as secured creditor under Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is justifiable as NCLT is obliged to apply decision of Supreme Court.
NCLAT Delhi held that present appeal is not maintainable as shareholder is not a person aggrieved under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, order admitting CIRP u/s. 7 sustained.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of Unijules Life Sciences Limited [Corporate Debtor] as submitted by S.S. Fabricators & Manufacturers P. Ltd. [Successful Resolution Applicant] approved since it is duly approved by CoC and also meets requirement of Section 30(2) of the IBC.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator duly allowed to remove all the movable assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the leased premises since appellant/lessor never raised any objection regarding ownership of assets either during CIRP or during liquidation proceeding.
Gujarat High Court held that it would not be appropriate to invoke its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case involving possession and control of assets with corporate debtor during liquidation.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that Corporate Debtor [Shree Ram Cottex Industries Pvt. Ltd.] is admitted into liquidation in terms of provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in view of rejection of resolution plan u/s. 31(2) for non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Gauhati High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 without issuing Form GST ASMT-10 as prescribed under section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 is invalid. Accordingly, held that action is contrary to the provisions of law.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of wages and salaries after the issuance of the layoff notice rightly rejected since the appellant workmen due to issuance of the layoff notice has not worked after issuance of this layoff notice. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
