NCLAT
“Law will take its own course”; NCLAT refuses to interfere with NCLT’s order approving Resolution Plan
NCLAT held that that the allocation of meagre amount in Resolution Plan to Creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value but same is not the case in instant matter.
NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 15 days in appeal due to lack of jurisdiction even if fraud has been played
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that as per S. 61(2) every appeal must be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
Tribunal, Regulatory Bodies and Commissions Monthly Roundup | Top 13 Legal Stories covering Google-CCI case, FTS under India Netherlands DTAA, RCap Resolution, RBI Penalty on Amazon, SEBI Penalty on Arshad Warsi, and more from March 2023
Find interesting rulings by NCLT, NCLAT, RBI, ITAT, SEBI, NCDRC covering legal stories on FTS under India Netherlands DTAA, reconsideration of approved resolution plan in insolvency proceedings, definition of financial debt, compensation against doctor’s legal obligations, and much more.
[Google-CCI Case] |NCLAT upholds Rs1,337 crore penalty on google for abuse of dominant position in Android Mobile Device Ecosystem
The Tribunal while upholding the impugned order passed by CCI dated 20-10-2022, set aside 4 key directions issued in paragraphs 617.3, 617.9, 617.10 and 617.7.
[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud
The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge’s decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.
[Reliance Capital (RCap) Resolution] CoC has power to negotiate and call for higher bid; NCLAT allows another round of bidding
The NCLAT held that even after completion of challenge mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retains its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP.
NCLAT upholds NCLT’s rejection to dislodge resolution plan against POSCO India Processing Center Private Limited
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
Do Third-party/shareholders have locus to challenge initiation of CIRP against Corporate Debtor? NCLAT answers
The NCLAT held that there is no law which allows a third party or shareholders to settle the claims of Financial Creditor on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, M/s McDowell Holdings Limited.
Thanos’ Infinite Gauntlet Given an Endgame Treatment – Jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) as interpreted by the Apex Court
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 23
Swiss Challenge and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Does the Shoe Fit The Size?
by Swarnendu Chatterjee†, Anwesha Pal†† and Megha Saha†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 22
Once Resolution Plan approved and submitted to Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be sent back for re-consideration: NCLAT
In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.
Top 14 Rulings from Tribunals, Commissions, Regulatory Authorities: Shiv Sena Party Symbol Dispute, Income Tax Act, Medical Negligence and more| February 2023 Roundup
This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.
NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor
In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority’s order was not followed in its true spirit.
NCLAT stays Insolvency proceeding against Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd
The NCLAT granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) by staying bankruptcy proceedings against them, after the NCLT admitted S. 7 application and directed the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor/ZEEL.
Period of suspension of legal proceedings is excludable in computing limitation period for enforcement of right under Section 22(5), SICA: Supreme Court
Supreme Court held that the period of suspension of legal proceedings is excludable in computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of such right in terms of Section 22(5), SICA. Further, the dismissal of the application under Section 9, IBC on the ground of ‘pre-existing dispute’ cannot be held to be patently illegal or perverse.
In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? NCLAT Answers
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Whether Corporate Debtor can raise pre-existing dispute in reply to the petition filed under Section 9 IBC in case demand notice issued under Section 8 of IBC is not replied? NCLAT answers
In the instant matter, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority dismissing application in view of the “pre-existing dispute”. NCLAT held that when the reply to Demand Notice was not filed within 10 days, the Corporate Debtor is not precluded from raising the question of dispute or pleading that there is no amount due and payable.