Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Adjudicating Authority does not appear to have committed any error in holding the alleged disputes claimed by the Corporate Debtor to be feeble as it is not supported by credible evidence.” NCLAT
A creditor has limited grounds to object to S. 10 of IBC application.
NCLT imposed cost to restain Trimex Industries (P) Ltd. from filing frivolous applications which consume Tribunal’s valuable resources and time.
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
Madras High Court said that there is no reason why the complaint was not filed either before IBBI or NCLT for the alleged fraud.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that no pre-existing dispute regarding quality of supplied goods exist as the same was not raised before consumption of the goods.
The Court opined that the present case would fall under the Office Memorandum which stated that “where there is no cognizable offence under IPC and other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country.”
Supreme Court clarified that the substituted Regulation 30-A of IBBI Regulations clearly provided for withdrawal applications being entertained before constitution of Committee of Creditors.
The NCLAT held that even after completion of challenge mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retains its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP.
The NCLAT held that there is no law which allows a third party or shareholders to settle the claims of Financial Creditor on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, M/s McDowell Holdings Limited.
NCLT held that the amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt as it was not disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money.
In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.
In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority’s order was not followed in its true spirit.
The NCLAT granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) by staying bankruptcy proceedings against them, after the NCLT admitted S. 7 application and directed the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor/ZEEL.
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.
In the instant case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence neither submitted proof of claim nor responded to a specific communication via an e-mail addressed to Senior Intelligence Officer. This is a case where despite knowledge, the statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim.
While hearing an appeal challenging an impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing a S. 7 IBC application on the ground that the appellant was not able to establish debt and default, the Tribunal held that it is clear from the facts and circumstances the definition of debt and default is rightly established by the appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has committed a patent error while passing the impugned order.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.
While deciding the present matter dealing with mistake in demand notice, NCLAT held that “the Corporate Debtor has not and would not be prejudiced by fact that Operational Creditor has mentioned the wrong date of default due to its inadvertence.”