Provisions of I&B Code must prevail over Section 434 of Companies Act if there is any inconsistency: SC
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman and M.R. Shah, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the order of Rajasthan High
NCLT
Appeal filed under I&B Code by ‘suspended’ Board of Directors—held not maintainable: NCLAT
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical) restored the Corporate
Proceedings under Section 9 I&B Code quashed in absence of Demand Notice in terms of Section 8(1): NCLAT
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) allowed
Every ‘interest’ on principal amount is not included in ‘debt’; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial),
Cyrus Investment’s plea of transfer of company petition against Tata Sons to Tribunal’s Delhi forum dismissed
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: Cyrus Investment, the petitioners filed an application under Rule 11, read with Rule 16 of the
Pending winding up petitions of companies which have not been served before High Court shall stand transferred to National Company Law Tribunal
Bombay High Court: In a case dealing with petitions pending admission before the High Court filed under the Companies Act, 1956 where