Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Resolution Plan has been approved by 83.46% voting share of the CoC, therefore, at the instance of Appellant, approval of Resolution Plan cannot be allowed to be questioned.”
From 03 to 04-04-2025, the International Bar Association corporate and M&A Law Committee at Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai.
“There is a clear distinction between the Avoidance Applications that may be filed by the Resolution Professional in view of Section 25(2)(j), for avoidance of transactions in accordance with Chapter III of the IBC, and the applications that may be filed in respect of the fraudulent trading or wrongful trading under Section 66, which falls under Chapter VI of the IBC.”
‘On the complete extinguishment of all tax liabilities of the Corporate Debtor upon the approval of the Resolution Plan, there could be no occasion whatsoever for the IT Commissioner to issue the impugned notice under Section 263 of the Act, seeking to revise the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2020-21.’
by Sidharth Sethi*, Shreya Sircar** and Kunal Saini***
The immunity granted by the moratorium order issued under Section 14 of the IBC can only be obtained by a corporate debtor and not by a natural person such as the present accused, who was the Director of the corporate debtor.
A plain reading of Section 32A IBC reveals that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31, the Corporate Debtor shall not be prosecuted for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP. However, this immunity does not extend to the erstwhile officers and persons responsible for the conduct of its business prior to CIRP.
“The IBC is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice.”
Noting that hypothecation means the process of using an asset as collateral for a loan. It acts as a protection to the lender when the borrower does not repay the loan, the Supreme Court highlighted that the name of the document is not a decisive factor. Only because the title of the document contains the word hypothecation, it cannot be concluded that guarantee is not a part of this document.
The Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) and INSOL India held the 2nd International Conclave in Delhi on 7th December to engage in the path-breaking discourse surrounding the ever-evolving space of insolvency and bankruptcy.
The claims pertaining to the transfer fees, etc., cannot be dealt with by courts or tribunals as the same relates to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors for they are the best persons to determine their interests, and any such interference is non-justiciable except as provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016.
The NCLAT held the appellant’s claim was inflated, and the Adjudicating Authority rightly recalculated the actual unpaid amount, which fell below the Rs 1 crore threshold.
‘The autonomy conferred on the parties is not unbridled and appointment of the Arbitrator has to meet the prerequisite of his neutrality and impartiality which are the bedrock on which the foundation of arbitration rests.’
by Anupm Prakash* and Kirti Talreja**
The NCLAT reinforced that not all financial transactions qualify as financial debts under the IBC.
The NCLT noted that Form AA, meant for individual Insolvency Professionals, had been modified by the Insolvency Professional Entity to fit its consent as no separate form for IPEs exists.
The Calcutta High Court said that the principle of comity of nations and comity of courts had been recognized by the Indian Courts by giving adequate weightage to orders or decrees of a foreign court while deciding any proceeding in a domestic court.
The Court held that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are penal in nature and not akin to civil recovery proceedings.