Money advanced for clearing land title is an investment, not financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC: NCLAT
The NCLAT reinforced that not all financial transactions qualify as financial debts under the IBC.
The NCLAT reinforced that not all financial transactions qualify as financial debts under the IBC.
by Sidharth Sethi† and Shreya Sircar††
Arbitration — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Arbitral award — Validity of: Law explained on validity
The NCLAT criticized the appellants for unnecessarily burdening the Tribunal with excessive documentation, voluminous records and citations of little value, thereby wasting Tribunal’s resources and acting contrary to professional ethics.
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advised the committee of creditors (CoC) in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Metalyst Forgings Limited (Metalyst),
by Neelambera Sandeepan* and Srivaishanavi R.**
The Court exonerated the charges of contravention of prescribing non-refundable participation fee levied on Liquidator of Corporate Debtor, however, he was found guilty of paying excess fees to BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP.
by Gaurav Mitra* and Lavanya Pathak**
by Yogendra Aldak†, Pranav Mundra†† and Balraaj Singh Chhatwal†††
The State Commission absolved Flipkart from any liability as it was merely facilitating the sale through its portal. However, it was noted that Flipkart should have displayed a strict attitude vis-à-vis breach of terms regarding sale of counterfeit products on its site.
“While deciding that whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt arising out of a transaction covered by an agreement or arrangement in writing, it is necessary to ascertain what is the real nature of the transaction reflected in the writing.”
“It is trite that the international treaty obligations are required to be followed strictly and any deviation therefrom would have adverse effects including downgrading of the business interests of country in the international community.”
The NCLAT held that the appellant, having obtained a recovery certificate from RERA, qualified as Financial Creditors.
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.
The NCLAT warned against manipulating the IBC for debt recovery purposes, as it would defeat the code’s purpose of rehabilitating Corporate Debtors.
NCLAT held that CoCs’ resolution not to consider Resolution Plans from additional new entrants rendered the NCLAT’s orders unsustainable.
NCLAT upheld appellant’s classification as a Financial Institution and it’s liability to pay Liquidation Costs.
NCLAT stated that since the IBC overrides the SARFAESI Act, the Liquidator ought not to prefer a petition, based on the SARFAESI Act, and therefore Liquidator’s decision to classify the appellant as an unsecured financial creditor was illegal and invalid.
M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (23 of 1956) — S. 132(6)(l) — Tax on advertisement: Law clarified on requisites for levy of