Erstwhile Directors of corporate debtor must be given the resolution plans for attending CoC meetings
Supreme Court: The Bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ, yet again dealing with an issue relating to the Insolvency and
insolvency and bankruptcy code
NCLT | TATA Chemicals’ petition under IBC Code dismissed with heavy cost of Rs 10 lakhs, for being filed with ulterior motive
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench: This Bench comprising Mr V.P. Singh and Mr Ravikumar Duraisamy as members dismissed a petition filed
SC| Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code upheld in entirety; a ‘paradise lost’ for defaulters [Full Report]
Supreme Court: The bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ has, in a landmark verdict, upheld the validity of the Insolvency
I&B Code overrides Companies Act; Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be defeated by taking resort to internal dispute: NCLAT
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial)
Time period between admission of company for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and knowledge of Resolution Professional can be excluded from time limit
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The NCLAT heard an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai
Comments invited on draft IBBI (Mechanism for Issuing Regulations) Regulations, 2018
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is a modern economic legislation. Section 240 of the Code empowers the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
NCLAT: ‘Moratorium’ will not affect any suit or case pending before Supreme Court u/Art. 32 or any High Court u/Art. 226
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Canara Bank, the appellant-financial creditor, challenged the impugned order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench whereby
Moratorium provisions under Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions Act), 1958 repugnant to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016
Supreme Court: Dealing with the question relating to applicability of the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions Act), 1958 vis-a-vis the Insolvency and