The Delhi High Court held that adjudication of an avoidance application was independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and could survive Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and a Resolution Professional would not be functus officio with respect to adjudication of avoidance application.
The Supreme Court had reservation to express its opinion on the merits of the case which would otherwise affect the proceedings pending before NCLAT and stated that the findings of the CCI at the interlocutory stage was neither without jurisdiction nor suffered from any error which would necessitate interference in the appeal.
In a case challenging the Adjudicating Authority’s order to withdraw from e-auction process and refund of EMD and first instalment, the Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority can allow the Successful Auction Purchaser to withdraw from e-auction process when the balance bid amount is due because of the attachment of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that once the CoC has decided to vote on the resolution plans after closure of challenge process, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider any revised plan submitted thereafter.
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred against the order of NCLT admitting S. 7 IBC application or repayment of financial debt. Upholding the order of the NCLT, the Tribunal held that even if there is no proof of loan agreement other materials on record can prove the financial debt.
The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: While deciding an appeal filed against the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order imposing a
In the instant matter, an appeal was filed challenging NCLT's order directing the CoC to reconsider its decision. Upholding the NCLT's order, the Tribunal held that when the CoC's decision for liquidation is in accordance with IBC, then only NCLT's obligation to direct liquidation will arise.
The Supreme Court observed that the important role of the Regulator cannot be circumvented by simply asking for rectification under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956.
In instant matter, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the NCLT order approving the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The NCLAT held that once Resolution plan is approved by CoC, it cannot direct modifications of claims to Resolution Plan as the Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction.
In the present case, a Liquidator filed an application before for release/refund of unlawful payment by the applicant. The Tribunal, partly allowing the appeal, upheld the refund of the amount of Rs.25,46,588/- and of the amount of Rs.1,08,797/- as no application for refund was filed for the said amount.
NCLAT while deciding the appeal held that the CoC after approving the resolution plan cannot seek direction from Adjudicating Authority to consider the new resolution plan of a third party who was not a part of the CIRP as it would fall outside the timeline and defeat the very scope and objective of the Code.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member)
In the case at hand, a buyer of an apartment in a DLF Project had allegedly found several clauses of the buyer-seller agreement reflecting abuse of dominance position by DLF which was “highly unfair and discriminatory” to the buyer.
NCLAT while deciding the issue of cartelisation by breweries observed that lesser penalty application indicates admission of guilt and held United Breweries, Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. and All India Breweries Association liable for cartelisation.
Presenting to you tour d’horizon of all the significant decisions covered in the month of December 2022 of the Tribunals, Commissions and Regulatory Bodies.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | The bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Naresh Salecha* (Technical Member) held that
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Dismissing the appeals, a bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Kanthi Narahari
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Allowing the appeal as the impugned order is contrary to law, the bench comprising of Rakesh