Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.”
While dismissing the present appeal, the NCLAT held that appellant’s prayer pertaining to admission of the claim cannot be acceded to in the ‘eye of Law’.
The NCLAT rejected an application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days (about 1 and a half months) on the ground of want of sufficient cause.
Amount taken by the Directors of the Corporate Debtor in their personal capacity cannot be construed as ‘Financial Debt’ under S. 5(8) of the IBC.
NCLAT observed that the principal objective of the IBC is ‘revival of the Corporate Debtor and Resolution’ and therefore “Liquidation ought to be the last resort, keeping in view the scope and spirit of the Code.”
NCLAT directed the new Resolution Professional to protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor as required under S. 25(1) of the IBC