{"id":224562,"date":"2020-01-27T09:30:27","date_gmt":"2020-01-27T04:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=224562"},"modified":"2020-02-27T14:02:14","modified_gmt":"2020-02-27T08:32:14","slug":"nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLAT | NCLT’s order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a ‘related party’ and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0<\/strong>A Bench of Justice Venugopal M., Member (Judicial) and Balvider Singh and Ashok Kumar Mishra, Members (Technical) dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal. Chandigarh, whereby the resolution plan submitted by the appellant was rejected and liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was directed to be initiated.<\/p>\n

The Corporate Debtor had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process. The application was submitted by the NCLT and Resolution Professional was appointed. On the expiry of the period for completion of the insolvency resolution process, the Resolution Professional filed an application seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The appellant (Resolution Applicant) submitted before the NCLT that the resolution plan submitted by them was not duly considered. Per contra, the Resolution Professional submitted that no resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors.<\/p>\n

After hearing both the parties, the NCLT order liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

The Appellant Tribunal noted certain facts including that the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor has been operating the bank accounts of the Resolution Applicant as authorised signatory. The Resolution Applicant also had various transactions with the Corporate Debtor such as transfer of assets, sale of goods and rental income from the Resolution Applicant. Considering these facts, the Appellate Tribunal held that it was established that the appellant (Resolution Applicant) was a related party and was not eligible as per Section 29-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by the Resolution Applicant and dismissed the same. [Global Business Corpn. v. Punjab National Bank, 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 95<\/b><\/a>, decided on 23-01-2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice Venugopal M., Member (Judicial) and Balvider Singh and Ashok Kumar Mishra, Members (Technical) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":153604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[30596,29690,39343,39344],"class_list":["post-224562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-corporate-debtor","tag-liquidation","tag-related-party","tag-section-29-a-ibc"],"yoast_head":"\nNCLAT | NCLT's order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a 'related party' and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCLAT | NCLT's order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a 'related party' and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice Venugopal M., Member (Judicial) and Balvider Singh and Ashok Kumar Mishra, Members (Technical)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-27T04:00:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-02-27T08:32:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"844\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/\",\"name\":\"NCLAT | NCLT's order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a 'related party' and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-27T04:00:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-02-27T08:32:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":844},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCLAT | NCLT’s order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a ‘related party’ and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NCLAT | NCLT's order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a 'related party' and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCLAT | NCLT's order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a 'related party' and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC","og_description":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice Venugopal M., Member (Judicial) and Balvider Singh and Ashok Kumar Mishra, Members (Technical)","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-27T04:00:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-02-27T08:32:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":844,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/","name":"NCLAT | NCLT's order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a 'related party' and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","datePublished":"2020-01-27T04:00:27+00:00","dateModified":"2020-02-27T08:32:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","width":1330,"height":844},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/27\/nclat-nclts-order-directing-liquidation-of-corporate-debtor-upheld-where-resolution-applicant-was-a-related-party-and-thus-not-eligible-under-s-29-a-ibc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCLAT | NCLT’s order directing liquidation of corporate debtor upheld where resolution applicant was a ‘related party’ and thus not eligible under S. 29-A IBC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":262217,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/22\/can-application-filed-under-s-951-read-with-s-601-ibc-be-rejected-on-ground-that-no-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-was-pending-against-corporate-debtor-nclat-addresses\/","url_meta":{"origin":224562,"position":0},"title":"Can application filed under S. 95(1) read with S. 60(1) IBC be rejected on ground that no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was pending against Corporate Debtor? NCLAT addresses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0If CIRP or Liquidation Proceeding of a Corporate Debtor is pending before a NCLT, application relating to Insolvency Process of Corporate or Personal Guarantor should be filed before same NCLT. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281427,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/11\/corporate-debtor-default-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-coc-liquidation-nclt-reconsider-liquidation-appeal-nclat-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":224562,"position":1},"title":"Adjudicating Authority is obligated to give direction for liquidation only when CoC’s decision is in accordance with IBC: NCLAT","author":"Editor","date":"January 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":221560,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/30\/nclat-law-on-maintainability-of-compromise-and-arrangement-application-by-promoter-during-pendency-of-liquidation-under-ibc-clarified\/","url_meta":{"origin":224562,"position":2},"title":"NCLAT | Law on maintainability of Compromise and Arrangement application by Promoter during pendency of Liquidation under IBC clarified","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyay, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), set aside the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata, for failure to notice the correct position of law regarding maintainability of application under Sections 230 to 232 of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214891,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/21\/nclat-rejection-of-application-under-s-9-ibc-upheld-where-cirp-initiated-with-fraudulent-and-malicious-intent\/","url_meta":{"origin":224562,"position":3},"title":"NCLAT | Rejection of application under S. 9 IBC upheld where CIRP initiated with ‘fraudulent and malicious’ intent","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Bench of S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice A.I.S Cheema, Member (Judicial) and Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) upheld the impugned decision whereby the appellant's (Operational Creditor's) application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed against the respondent (Corporate Debtor) was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281212,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/07\/corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-corporate-debtor-liquidation-refund-allowed-appeal-partly-allowed-no-inconsistency-s-11b-of-the-central-excise-act-1944-s-335-ibc\/","url_meta":{"origin":224562,"position":4},"title":"No inconsistency between Section 33 IBC and Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; NCLAT partly allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"January 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":285588,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/27\/corporate-insolvency-cirp-resolution-plan-not-approval-eligibility-of-the-resolution-applicant-appeal-last-opportunity-revival-of-corporate-debtor\/","url_meta":{"origin":224562,"position":5},"title":"NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor","author":"Ritu","date":"February 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224562\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}