Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that once the resolution plan was approved by the COC, it should be binding on all the stakeholders. Thus, the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate.
The NCLT stated that the petitioner neither had a direct contractual relationship with the respondent, nor was the respondent provided with any goods/services, thereby disqualifying them as an operational creditor.
The application is filed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank against the Himalayan Mineral Waters Private Limited for a total financial debt of Rs. 50,04,38,456/- for the credit facilities availed by Leel Electricals.
The Court exonerated the charges of contravention of prescribing non-refundable participation fee levied on Liquidator of Corporate Debtor, however, he was found guilty of paying excess fees to BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP.
The NCLT directed the Resolution Professional to hand over control of Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd. back to the Corporate Debtor, if it had been taken over.
“The issue of notice will not come in the way of execution or implementation of the resolution plan and the allotment of the unit to the appellant, if made, will be subject to the outcome of the present appeal.”
The NCLT admitted Section 7 IBC application against the Deccan Charters, Air Charter Company over a default of approx. Rs. 9 Crore 82 Lakhs.
By Aditya Vikram Singh† and Vedant Singh††
“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 commercial wisdom of the CoC was considered paramount, and no interference was justified.
Section 12A was introduced in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, allowing the withdrawal of CIRP with the approval of 90% voting share of the CoC.
“If a Resolution Professional proceeds in terms of Section 25 of the IBC and secures the assets from the creditors, the creditors would not be entitled to claim set-off during the course of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.”
by Zorawar Singh† and Hitesh Mankar††
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 1
The NCLAT rejected Resolution Professional’s reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as no fraud was found on the part of the Corporate Debtor.
The Liquidator should endeavor to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern in the Liquidation Proceeding, and the appellant may participate by submitting its plan.
NCLAT observed that the issue raised by the appellant, while attractive, no longer had relevance after the closure of the CIRP proceedings.
Madras High Court said that if the Arbitrators are not paid their fees / costs on account of the moratorium order, the object of arbitration will get defeated, as competent Arbitrators will hesitate to become Arbitrators in a dispute involving Companies facing financial crisis.
The NCLAT held that the appellant has no Locus Standi to make claim for any unpaid Fees/Costs from the members of the CoCs, as he is neither the RP in the project nor is connected with another project.
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.