Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advised the committee of creditors (CoC) in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Metalyst Forgings Limited (Metalyst),
NCLAT held that CoCs’ resolution not to consider Resolution Plans from additional new entrants rendered the NCLAT’s orders unsustainable.
by Bishwajit Dubey† and Raghav Pandey††
IBBI notifies Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024.
“The need for a code of conduct assumes greater importance in light of the fact that once a decision is taken by the CoC, the aggrieved party is deprived of the legal remedies, except to a limited extent.”
The NCLAT held that the CoC had the jurisdiction to decide on liquidation as per Section 33(2) and its explanation, even before completing all steps for resolution.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 1
NCLAT held that CIRP be closed with respect to the Corporate Debtor since not a single ‘Claim' was received by the IRP even after the public announcement.
DSK Legal advised and assisted Mr. Sundaresh Bhat, appointed as Resolution Professional JBF Petrochemicals Limited (“JBF”) with respect to the corporate insolvency
by Anoop Rawat†, Saurav Panda†† and Amrit Mahal†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 51
“Any settlement after passing of the impugned order and after constitution of the CoC is only permissible when the same is approved with 90% vote share of CoC.”
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised Axis Bank Limited (Lead Bank), State Bank of India, J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited, Punjab National Bank,
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 23
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that once the CoC has decided to vote on the resolution plans after closure of challenge process, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider any revised plan submitted thereafter.
NCLAT while deciding the appeal held that the CoC after approving the resolution plan cannot seek direction from Adjudicating Authority to consider the new resolution plan of a third party who was not a part of the CIRP as it would fall outside the timeline and defeat the very scope and objective of the Code.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 12 R. 6 — Grant of relief on the basis of admission — When
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that there is no provision in Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for alteration or modification in the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority
by Kartikey Mahajan, Siddhant Sharma and Jatan Rodrigues
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 87
That various stakeholders are to be considered by the Resolution Professional under the relevant provisions of IBC andin accordance with law, and the same should be placed before the CoC for approval. Thus, the resolution plan was sent back for approval by the Committee of Creditors.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi: In a batch of appeals filed challenging order dated 22-06-2021 passed by the National