The Delhi High Court held that adjudication of an avoidance application was independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and could survive Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and a Resolution Professional would not be functus officio with respect to adjudication of avoidance application.
In a case challenging the Adjudicating Authority’s order to withdraw from e-auction process and refund of EMD and first instalment, the Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority can allow the Successful Auction Purchaser to withdraw from e-auction process when the balance bid amount is due because of the attachment of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
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.
Allahabad High Court said that challenge to demand notice for electricity dues, issued jointly in name of Directors of the insolvent company cannot be sustained on the ground that liabilities of guarantor stood automatically discharged on acceptance of Resolution Plan.
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.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member)
Devna Arora* and Didon Misri**
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | The bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Naresh Salecha* (Technical Member) held that
Section 9 of CPC is also symbolised as the gateway to the civil Courts as it envisages not only the inherent powers of the Civil Courts to entertain any suit of a civil nature, but also the inherent rights of the disgruntled yet hopeful litigants to approach the civil Courts with a huge expectation that they will get justice from this forum, which would adjudicate upon their infracted legal rights and will invoke the legal machinery to protect and vindicate such rights.
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
by Kartikey Mahajan, Siddhant Sharma and Jatan Rodrigues
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 87
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Dismissing the appeal, Ashok Bhushan, J., Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical
Gujarat High Court held that a writ cannot be issued to direct the authorities to complete the reappointment process on time