[Zee-Sony merger] NCLAT sets aside NCLT order directing stock exchange to reconsider approval
NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order and remitted back the matter to NCLT to examine the same after hearing both the parties.
NCLAT
Threshold limit includes both principal amount and interest under IBC; NCLAT set aside NCLT’s order
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.
SC upholds NCLAT’s ‘project-wise-resolution’ process order in Supertech Insolvency; allows it to complete housing projects
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.
Intent of Corporate Debtor irrelevant in establishing existence of preferential transaction: NCLAT
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
What is the rule for settlement after constitution of ‘Committee of Creditors’? NCLAT Answers
“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.”
[Monthly Roundup ] Top Stories like Arshad Warsi pump and dump case; Compensation on failure to deliver ‘Onam Sadya’; Sambhal cold storage collapse incident, and more [April 2023]
Explore decisions of Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies and Commissions in India with stories on supply of goods to overseas customers, question of condonation of delay by NCLAT, maintainability of application u/s 7 of IBC Code, NGT on violation of environmental norms by State, and so on.
No embargo on Operational Creditor to file application u/S 9 IBC, even if agreement has an arbitration clause: NCLAT
The scope and objective of the Code is ‘Resolution’, and not a ‘Recovery Mode / Forum’.
Mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalty for anti-competitive behavior: NCLAT imposes 1% penalty of the turnover on Geep Industries
“…penalty @1% of the turnover for each year of continuance of the cartel would be appropriate penalty in keeping with the extent and seriousness proportionality of the anti-competitive behavior of Geep Industries.”.
To reject application under Sec. 9 IBC, a genuine pre-existing dispute must exist: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that no pre-existing dispute regarding quality of supplied goods exist as the same was not raised before consumption of the goods.
“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.