Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The NCLAT reiterated the importance of adhering to timelines in the Insolvency resolution process and the unacceptability of claims filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.
The main contention of the appellants is that the lay-off notice was not issued in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor failed to prove a pre-existing dispute to justify the rejection of the Section 9 application.
NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor failed to prove a pre-existing dispute to justify the rejection of the Section 9 application.
NCLT’s order did not contain specific findings regarding whether the entire loan amount had been paid and whether nothing remained due.
At this juncture, examining whether the petition filed before the NCLT can be said to be a ‘dressed-up’ petition, would necessarily require a detailed exercise to be carried out by this Court to render findings either way clearly impinging upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT in deciding such a question.
Madras High Court said that if the Arbitrators are not paid their fees / costs on account of the moratorium order, the object of arbitration will get defeated, as competent Arbitrators will hesitate to become Arbitrators in a dispute involving Companies facing financial crisis.
NCLT seeks response from respondents to the application for refunds to passengers under Section 60(5) of IBC.
“If in the present case, the petition is entertained, it will eventually subvert the procedure laid down under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the respondent in return will be denied the opportunity to present their case before the concerned NCLT.”
SAT Mumbai observed that it is not open to a shareholder to complain about the scheme of arrangement before the SEBI or to the Stock Exchange nor is it open to the shareholder to make a representation and /or file an appeal before this Tribunal under Section 15T of the SEBI Act.
DSK Legal advised and assisted Mr. Sundaresh Bhat, appointed as Resolution Professional JBF Petrochemicals Limited (“JBF”) with respect to the corporate insolvency
“The Proceedings under the IBC, 2016, are summary in character and a trial is not conducted, like that of ‘Civil’ matter, before the ‘Competent Civil Court’.”
NCLAT held that an application preferred under Section 9 of the IBC for implementation of an Arbitral Award is not maintainable.
“In the instant case, the record establishes that there is a ‘debt’ and a ‘default’ and the Application is complete and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the Application under Section 7 of the Code.”
While dismissing the present appeal, the NCLAT held that appellant’s prayer pertaining to admission of the claim cannot be acceded to in the ‘eye of Law’.
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.