Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“There shall be liberty to the appellant to file a fresh Section 7 application for any default on the part of the corporate debtor subsequent to 10A period.”
“There is no mandatory requirement for factorising the date of uploading of the balance sheet on the MCA portal for computing the period of limitation.”
“If the Corporate Debtor operates as a manufacturing facility, then electricity may be treated as critical service by the insolvency professional and the dues for such services must be paid.”
“Any dispute even pending in the arbitration does not in any manner prohibit the financial creditor to take remedy under Section 7 IBC.”
The NCLAT noted that the NCLT had not delegated its jurisdiction to the 15-member committee but tasked the committee to act under the NCLT’s oversight, ensuring compliance with its guidance and observations.
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 NCLAT upheld the grant of reliefs and concessions regarding shared utilities and services in Resolution Plan to facilitate the smooth and successful implementation of the Resolution Plan.
NCLAT held that CoCs’ resolution not to consider Resolution Plans from additional new entrants rendered the NCLAT’s orders unsustainable.
In the instant matter, the NCLT rejected the application, noting the approval of the resolution by the Committee of Creditors and the absence of filing through an authorized representative.
NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order on finding no error in rejecting the appellant’s objections to the Resolution Plan.
The NCLAT reiterated that Commercial wisdom of the CoC is crucial in determining the viability and feasibility of a resolution plan.
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.
A mere availability of arbitration or any other proceeding could not preclude the operational creditor from initiating proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC. The critical question would be whether the application was filed within the limitation period.
NCLAT held that the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is at a prima facie stage and should not be treated as a final expression of opinion.
The principle of equality is applicable only in same class of creditors, i.e., secured or unsecured, financial or operational.
The NCLAT stated that prayers in general or in a very wide term or which is too elaborate as prayed in the applicant’s application may not require any consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
A 5-member bench overturned two judgments delivered by 3-judge bench which held that the NCLAT does not have the power to review or recall its own judgements.
“When consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential”, held NCLAT
NCLAT observed that in the instant matter “there was no title defect in the Corporate Debtor”.
While upholding NCLT’s order the NCLAT held that in the present case there is a debt which remained unpaid by the Operational Creditor.