The directors of the suspended corporate debtor filed an appeal against the National Company Law Tribunal’s (“NCLT”) ruling that rejected their request to have a non-bailable warrant issued against them.
CIRP proceedings under section 7 can be initiated against corporate debtors who are co-borrowers but there can be no double recovery of the same amount from both.
Since a specific limitation period for filing such an appeal is clearly mentioned, Section 17 of the Limitation Act could not be applied here.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of M. K. Resely & Ors. Vs Union Bank of India has condoned a delay of 147 days in filing of appeal before NCLAT upon equity.
A person to whom a debt has been properly assigned or transferred is also included in the definition of “Financial Creditor” under Section 5(7) of the IBC.
The Corporate Debtor went into CIRP vide the Adjudicating Authority (AA) order dated 20.09.2019 and Mr. Hemant Mehta (Appellant) got appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
A banker’s certificate is not mandatorily required for an operational creditor to begin Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
the Resolution Plan in question is in violation of section 30(2) (a) of the IBC. The NCLAT subsequently modified the Resolution Plan to include this claim in accordance with the law.
Section 7 of the Code permits a financial creditor to initiate a CIRP procedure against the guarantor being a corporate debtor in accordance with the default committed by the principal borrower.
The NCLAT had to decide whether the NCLT/CoC may provide resolution applicants repeated chances to alter their individual resolution plans and whether the CoC was authorised to entertain fresh or revised resolution plans without exhausting available bids.
NCLAT said that if there was deficiency in pleading, the same could be corrected by giving opportunity before this Appellate Tribunal to amend the pleadings. In Appeal naturally pleadings could be by filing Application and reply supported by documents.
In the present case, the NCLAT held that the Appellants were acting as investors, the money they gave to the Respondents was in the nature of a loan, satisfying the condition of amount “disbursed against consideration for time value of money,” and the committed returns were in the nature of “interest.”
Any person aggrieved by the decision of NCLT, or is not satisfied with the decision or if there is any mistake or error on part of NCLT then such a person can appeal NCLAT u/s 61 of IBC for its corrections and proper disposal of judgement/order.
Claims towards rent of leasehold property do not fall within the definition of the operational debt in terms of Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A judgement has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the powers of the NCLT under the IBC do not extend to adjudicating disputes relating to quasi- judicial or statutory authorities.
join For Updates