Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
DSK advised and assisted Mr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Resolution Professional of DS Kulkarni Developers Limited (“DSKDL”) with respect to the corporate insolvency
by Ankit Parhar† and Rashi Srivastava††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 55
The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority’s order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
“When consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential”, held NCLAT
by Vikas Mehta†
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.
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 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.
This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.
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.
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.
While deciding the present matter dealing with mistake in demand notice, NCLT 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.”
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that Adjudicating Authority cannot direct Resolution Professional to pay lease amount under Section 14(1)(d) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during CIRP