Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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
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.
The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority’s order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
“When consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential”, held NCLAT
by Sharmistha Ghosh†
NCLAT observed that in the instant matter “there was no title defect in the Corporate Debtor”.
“The Adjudicating Authority does not appear to have committed any error in holding the alleged disputes claimed by the Corporate Debtor to be feeble as it is not supported by credible evidence.” NCLAT
While speedily and effectively disposing off the present appeal, the NCLAT modified the imposed cost from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- for the restoration of the company’s name in the register maintained by the ROC.
Know about why NGT formed Joint Committee for environmental norms violations in constructions at CM Kejriwal’s residence, relevancy of intent of Corporate Debtor, threshold limit under IBC Code, compensation in Ludhiana Gas Leak incident, etc.
While upholding NCLT’s order the NCLAT held that in the present case there is a debt which remained unpaid by the Operational Creditor.
NCLAT held that once a document is relied upon as evidence and not objected to, it cannot be rejected or ignored.
NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order and remitted back the matter to NCLT to examine the same after hearing both the parties.
NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the S. 7 application for not fulfilling ‘threshold’ when Deed of Guarantee mentions about the interest on default.
The Court said that if Committee of Creditors would be constituted for all projects of Supertech, it will cause immense hardships to the home buyers and will throw ever project into uncertainty.
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
“Any settlement after passing of the impugned order and after constitution of the CoC is only permissible when the same is approved with 90% vote share of CoC.”