Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | A bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J., Dr. Alok Srivastava* (Technical Member) and Barun
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that there is no provision in Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for alteration or modification in the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Dismissing the appeal, Ashok Bhushan, J., Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical
The Delhi High Court stayed the recovery of a Rs. 223.48 crore penalty imposed by Competition Commission of India (CCI) on MakeMyTrip (P) Ltd. for abuse of its dominant position.