Employees entitled to Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund dues even if funds not available with Liquidator: NCLAT
NCLAT held that the Provident Fund and Gratuity dues of the appellant are to be paid in full.
resolution plan
DSK Legal advises Resolution Professional of JBF Petrochemicals Ltd. with respect to the corporate insolvency resolution process of JBF
DSK Legal advised and assisted Mr. Sundaresh Bhat, appointed as Resolution Professional JBF Petrochemicals Limited (“JBF”) with respect to the corporate insolvency
Khaitan & Co advises Standard Chartered Bank for providing financial assistance by way of term loan facilities of INR 150 crores
DEAL DETAILS Standard Chartered Bank | Resolution Plan and Acquisition Financing Khaitan & Co advised Standard Chartered Bank for providing financial assistance
Khaitan & Co acts as legal counsel for Reliance Industries Limited and Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd in relation to submission of Resolution Plan for Sintex Industries Limited
DEAL DETAILS Reliance Industries Limited | Sintex Resolution Plan Khaitan & Co acted as legal counsel for Reliance Industries Limited and Assets
“Law will take its own course”; NCLAT refuses to interfere with NCLT’s order approving Resolution Plan
NCLAT held that that the allocation of meagre amount in Resolution Plan to Creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value but same is not the case in instant matter.
NCLAT upholds NCLT’s rejection to dislodge resolution plan against POSCO India Processing Center Private Limited
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
Top 14 Rulings from Tribunals, Commissions, Regulatory Authorities: Shiv Sena Party Symbol Dispute, Income Tax Act, Medical Negligence and more| February 2023 Roundup
This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.
Adjudication of an avoidance application is independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and can survive CIRP: Delhi High Court
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.
NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that once the CoC has decided to vote on the resolution plans after closure of challenge process, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider any revised plan submitted thereafter.
NCLAT | Once the resolution plan is submitted for approval, it is binding between the Committee of Creditors and successful resolution applicant
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.
Whether CoC after approval a Resolution Plan can seek direction to consider a new Resolution Plan of a third party who was not a part of the CIRP Proceedings? NCLAT answers
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member)
Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules 2016 cannot be invoked even if there is no provision in IBC to deal with certain circumstances: NCLAT
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Dismissing the appeals, a bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Kanthi Narahari
NCLAT | No provision for making any modification in the resolution plan; Adjudicating Authority can either approve or reject it
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
Claims of various stakeholders to be considered by Resolution Professional in accordance with law; NCLT, Chandigarh emphasizes
That various stakeholders are to be considered by the Resolution Professional under the relevant provisions of IBC andin accordance with law, and the same should be placed before the CoC for approval. Thus, the resolution plan was sent back for approval by the Committee of Creditors.
Non-payment of full provident fund and gratuity violative of S. 30(2)(e) IBC; NCLAT directs Jet Airways to make payments
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi: In a batch of appeals filed challenging order dated 22-06-2021 passed by the National
IBC’s Section 53 does not over-ride Section 48 of GVAT Act; Adjudicating Authority may reject Resolution Plan if it ignores statutory dues payable to State/Legal authority: SC
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and AS Bopanna, JJ has reversed the NCLAT order wherein it was held that the
SC upholds applicability of SEBI Circular; but gives a green signal to Reliance Commercial Finance resolution to avoid “unscrambling of resolution process”
“Such unscrambling of the resolution process will not only prove time-consuming, but may also adversely affect the agreed realized gains to the retail debenture holders, who have already consented to the negotiated settlement before the High Court.”
Jet Airways Resolution Plan’s implementation is subject to the outcome of? Here’s NCLAT’s order
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that
Once Adjudicating Authority approves Resolution Plan, does it still remains a confidential document? Read what NCLAT says
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member) expressed that, once Resolution Plain
Payment of Stamp Duty vis-à-vis Resolution Plan under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Simran Bais††