Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The ‘Bank Guarantee’ is a ‘contract of Guarantee’ provided/furnished by the Bank, the “surety”, to perform the ‘promise’, or ‘discharge’ the liability, of the third person, being the Corporate Debtor herein, in case of his ‘default’.”
The Adjudicating Authority erred in passing the impugned order, directing the imposition fine, overlooking the law of the land through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Limitation shall commence from the date when order is passed and shall not depend on the date when Appellant came to know of the order.
In the instant matter, the appellant claimed to be a Financial Creditor as their name was included in the balance sheet 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.
NCLT’s order did not contain specific findings regarding whether the entire loan amount had been paid and whether nothing remained due.
NCLAT observed that the issue raised by the appellant, while attractive, no longer had relevance after the closure of the CIRP proceedings.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies, Commissions this month.
“In application for condonation of delay in refiling of appeal, the applicant/appellant has to give sufficient reason for not re-filing the appeal within the time prescribed.”
In a matter concerning advancement of ₹360 crore loan by Hewlett Packard Enterprise India in violation of Section185 which only permit granting of loan for repayment of the loan and not for any other reason, the NCLT imposed ₹ 10 Lakh compounding fees.
NCLAT held that during the moratorium period under Section 14 of IBC, Customs Authorities are authorized to utilize Bank Guarantees and Fixed Deposits furnished against Zero Import Duty.
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 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.
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.
NCLAT held that the Provident Fund and Gratuity dues of the appellant are to be paid in full.
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.
“The Proceedings under the IBC, 2016, are summary in character and a trial is not conducted, like that of ‘Civil’ matter, before the ‘Competent Civil Court’.”
NCLAT held that an application preferred under Section 9 of the IBC for implementation of an Arbitral Award is not maintainable.
“In the instant case, the record establishes that there is a ‘debt’ and a ‘default’ and the Application is complete and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the Application under Section 7 of the Code.”