{"id":284102,"date":"2023-02-16T14:00:04","date_gmt":"2023-02-16T08:30:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=284102"},"modified":"2023-02-16T13:14:54","modified_gmt":"2023-02-16T07:44:54","slug":"application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:<\/b> A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J.<\/b> and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount reflected in the ledger account was paid by the respondent towards the part payment of the amount due i.e. debt and default hence, was unable to prove that the appellant is entitled to get the benefit to extend the period of limitation of three years.<\/p>\n

In the present matter, the respondent availed a sum of Rs. 98 Lakhs as Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) from the appellant orally and undertook to pay it on demand with interest @ 12% per annum. The appellant disbursed the loan to the Respondent through RTGS, which is reflected in the ledger of the appellant wherein the account of the Respondent is maintained. The appellant filed an application under Section 7<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) as prescribed under Rule 4(1). The Adjudicating Authority found that neither interest was paid by the respondent nor the principal amount and the application was barred by limitation as it has to be filed within the period of three years from the date of default. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 20-08-2021 dismissed the S. 7<\/a> IBC<\/a> application on the ground of limitation and also raised doubt about the existence of the outstanding debt and default. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant filed the present appeal challenging the same.<\/p>\n

The appellant contended that TDS paid by the respondent in terms of S. 194-A<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961<\/a> must be considered as part of payment for the purpose of extending the period of limitation. On the other hand, the respondent denied that the amount of Rs. 10 Lakh was paid towards part payment of the amount due.<\/p>\n

Relying on Prayag Ploytech (P) Ltd.<\/i> v. Gem Batteries (P) Ltd.<\/i>, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1131<\/a> and Pawan Kumar<\/i> v. Utsav Securities (P) Ltd.<\/i>, 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 4150<\/a>, the Tribunal observed that TDS deposited by the respondent would not be sufficient to hold that it pertains to the income of interest of the appellant on the amount which was alleged to have been advanced orally.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal observed that the respondent has nowhere admitted that this amount of Rs. 10 Lakh was paid towards part payment of the amount due and deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction.<\/p>\n

Rejecting the contention of appellant regarding extension of period of limitation, the Tribunal observed that the appellant has miserably failed to prove that the amount of Rs. 10 Lakh, reflected in the ledger account was paid by the respondent towards the part payment of the amount due to extending the period of limitation of three years from the said date specially in the absence of evidence of any writing in this regard.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal observed that the Appellant cannot take the advantage of the note for the purpose of brining the application filed under S. 7 within the period of limitation.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal observed that after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, no reliable contention can be found for the purpose of extension of the period of limitation in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and held that S. 7<\/a> IBC<\/a> application filed by the appellant was barred by limitation and therefore was rightly dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority.<\/p>\n

[Gajendra Investment Ltd. v. Bleu Noir Infrastructure Development (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 38<\/a>, decided on 12-01-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr. Siddham Nahata, Counsel for the Appellant;<\/p>\n

Mr. Abjijeet Sinha, Mr. Malak Bhatt and Mr. Rajat Bector, Counsel for the Respondent.<\/p>\n\n

*Ritu Singh, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While dismissing the appeal challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority which dismissed a S. 7<\/a> IBC<\/a> application on the ground of want of limitation, the Tribunal held that there is no question of going into the merits of the case and the application is barred by limitation.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":279124,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[8991,22064,3655,30182,22014,22804],"class_list":["post-284102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-appeal","tag-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code","tag-limitation","tag-national-company-law-appellate-tribunal","tag-nclat","tag-section-7"],"yoast_head":"\nDeduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount\" \/>\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\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-02-16T08:30:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"390\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"310\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/\",\"name\":\"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-02-16T08:30:04+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\",\"width\":390,\"height\":310,\"caption\":\"NCLAT\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT | SCC Times","description":"A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount","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\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT","og_description":"A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-02-16T08:30:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":390,"height":310,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/","name":"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","datePublished":"2023-02-16T08:30:04+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","width":390,"height":310,"caption":"NCLAT"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/application-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-section-7-barred-by-limitation-dismissed-nclat-appeal-tds-debt-default-limitation-dismissed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":296173,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/06\/nclat-application-section-9-ibc-not-maintainable-absence-strict-proof-debt-default\/","url_meta":{"origin":284102,"position":0},"title":"Application under Section 9 of the IBC is not maintainable in absence of strict proof of Debt and Default: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"July 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Proceedings under the IBC, 2016, are summary in character and a trial is not conducted, like that of \u2018Civil\u2019 matter, before the \u2018Competent Civil Court\u2019.\u201d","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\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280247,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/22\/plea-of-pre-existing-dispute-must-co-relate-with-amount-claimed-by-operational-creditor-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":284102,"position":1},"title":"Plea of pre-existing dispute must co-relate with amount claimed by Operational Creditor: NCLAT","author":"Editor","date":"December 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Allowing the appeal as the impugned order is contrary to law, the bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member) held that for a debtor to take the plea of pre-existing dispute under S. 8(2) the dispute must relate to\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\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":293536,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/31\/nclat-modified-imposed-cost-on-being-highly-excessive-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":284102,"position":2},"title":"NCLAT modifies Rs Ten Lakh cost for being highly excessive","author":"Ritu","date":"May 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While speedily and effectively disposing off the present appeal, the NCLAT modified the imposed cost from Rs. 10,00,000\/- to Rs. 1,00,000\/- for the restoration of the company's name in the register maintained by the ROC.","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\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289137,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/10\/nclt-approved-resolution-plan-nclat-allocation-meager-amount-no-ground-challenge-plan-appeal-dismissed-legal-research-news-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":284102,"position":3},"title":"\u201cLaw will take its own course\u201d; NCLAT refuses to interfere with NCLT’s order approving Resolution Plan","author":"Ritu","date":"April 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","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":[]},{"id":200359,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/20\/appeal-filed-under-ib-code-by-suspended-board-of-directors-held-not-maintainable-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":284102,"position":4},"title":"Appeal filed under I&B Code by \u2018suspended\u2019 Board of Directors\u2014held not maintainable: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical) restored the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as initiated against the appellant - Corporate Debtor. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Bank preferred applications under Section 9 of the\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":295496,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/27\/nclat-financial-debt-under-section-58-ibc-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":284102,"position":5},"title":"Transition between the parties should be direct to construe the debt as \u2018Financial Debt\u2019 under Section 5(8) of the IBC: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"June 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Amount taken by the Directors of the Corporate Debtor in their personal capacity cannot be construed as \u2018Financial Debt\u2019 under S. 5(8) of the IBC.","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\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284102","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=284102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284102\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/279124"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=284102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=284102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=284102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}