Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
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.
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 observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
The PIL seeks formulation and implementation of a scheme that conclusively addresses the grievances of other home buyers who may not have the capacity to approach courts/forums to seek redressal against builders.
The National Company Law Tribunal (Delhi Bench) passed orders in favour of aggrieved homebuyers ordering JAL/JIL/Jaypee/RP to continue with adjusting the delay compensation.
NCLT held that the amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt as it was not disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money.
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 23
In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.
In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority’s order was not followed in its true spirit.
The NCLAT granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) by staying bankruptcy proceedings against them, after the NCLT admitted S. 7 application and directed the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor/ZEEL.
ITAT reiterated that IBC has overriding effect on all the acts including Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’) which has been specifically provided under Section 178(6) of the IT Act as amended w.e.f. 01-11-2016.
In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.
In the instant matter, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority dismissing application in view of the “pre-existing dispute”. NCLAT held that when the reply to Demand Notice was not filed within 10 days, the Corporate Debtor is not precluded from raising the question of dispute or pleading that there is no amount due and payable.
Madras High Court reiterated that wearing “gown” is only optional and not mandatory before any Courts other than the Supreme Court or the High Courts. Thus, it held that the order of the National Company Law Board imposing a dress code for Advocates for appearance before the Tribunal is without authority and hence, illegal.
While hearing an appeal challenging an impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing a S. 7 IBC application on the ground that the appellant was not able to establish debt and default, the Tribunal held that it is clear from the facts and circumstances the definition of debt and default is rightly established by the appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has committed a patent error while passing the impugned order.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.
While deciding the present matter dealing with mistake in demand notice, NCLT held that “the Corporate Debtor has not and would not be prejudiced by fact that Operational Creditor has mentioned the wrong date of default due to its inadvertence.”
While upholding the NCLT’s order of admission of fresh application and initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, the Tribunal held that the nature of financial debt would not change on account of breach of the consent terms.
While adjudicating an appeal file with a delay of 55 days, the Tribunal held that S. 238 IBC overrides S. 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore this Tribunal does not have power to condone a delay beyond a period of 45 days.