Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The petitioner alleged that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had relied upon the decision of Vidarbha Industries, which even though was clarified in review petition of Axis Bank but was still contrary to the settled position in law laid down in Innoventive Industries. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General contended that the principle enunciated in Vidarbha Industries would be liable to dilute the substratum of the Code.
The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.
Allahabad High Court said that challenge to demand notice for electricity dues, issued jointly in name of Directors of the insolvent company cannot be sustained on the ground that liabilities of guarantor stood automatically discharged on acceptance of Resolution Plan.
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.
In instant matter, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the NCLT order approving the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The NCLAT held that once Resolution plan is approved by CoC, it cannot direct modifications of claims to Resolution Plan as the Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction.
The Tribunal stated that if the withdrawal of the Section 9 Admission order was upheld and CIRP were to start afresh from the date of admission of the Section 7 Application, it would have resulted in an inadequate insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor.
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.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member)
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | The bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Naresh Salecha* (Technical Member) held that
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | A bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J., Dr. Alok Srivastava* (Technical Member) and Barun
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Dismissing the appeal, Ashok Bhushan, J., Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | While dealing with an appeal challenging the impugned order passed by NCLT, Ashok Bhushan*, J., Dr.
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.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: While dealing with a matter seeking expunging the adverse remake made against the appellant, a
Delhi High Court: In two separate suits filed seeking recovery of amount from the defendants, being ex- promoters and personal guarantors of
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has held that if there are two borrowers or if two
“The CIRP is a time bound process where timeline has been prescribed for each step. The CIRP cannot be allowed to continue for indefinite period.”
“A claim may not be barred by limitation. It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation.”
National Company Law Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Chairperson, and Shreesha Merla, Technical Member, while