If the non-payment of a clear undisputed amount is being illegally and dishonestly avoided, whilst at the same time very large sums of money are being raised and spent by the same group or carrying on large real estate development projects.

Claims that do not form part of the resolution plan will be extinguished on the date of the adjudicating authority’s acceptance of the resolution plan. This ruling has reaffirmed the IBC’s goal, which is for the Corporate Debtor to start over with a clean slate based on the resolution plan.

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.

If the corporate debtor’s resolution plan was authorised and declared binding on the corporate debtor and its workers, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders under Section 31 of the Code, criminal proceedings under Section 138 will continue.

Section 5(8)(f) Explanation makes it clear that any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing.

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.

The issue of existence of a dispute when the application under Section 9 of IBC is filed before the Adjudicating Authority. These actions raise doubt regarding the veracity of the dispute and its pre-existence.

This judgement is a step in the right direction because it recognizes the authority of a non-petitioning creditor to request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings. It assures that A creditor is not deprived of their right just because they didn’t participate in the initial winding up procedure against corporate debtor.

CA. Venkata Siva Kumar, the petitioner, is a chartered accountant who has registered as an IP with the IBBI. In his writ petition, he claimed that the IBBI Regulations, 2016 are in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and should be overturned.

SBI initiated proceedings against Veesons under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding an outstanding amount of approximately INR 61 crores as Veesons did not pay its debts on time.

The Supreme Court of India issued its first comprehensive ruling on the operation and functioning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited vs ICICI Bank Limited.

The NCLAT, in its Order dated 23.04.2019, ruled that GMSPL’s (Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd.) Resolution Plan is better compared to the other Applicants. However, NCLAT noted that the parties’ claims that are not covered in the Resolution Plan may be raised before the relevant forums.

The Adjudicating Authorities have affirmed the IBC’s goals through a series of judgments and further proved its prevalence over the other laws of land.

The Supreme Court of India defined Section 60(5) of the Code as a residuary jurisdiction vested in the NCLT, allowing the NCLT to decide all questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to the corporate debtor’s insolvency resolution or liquidation under the Code.

IBC was introduced to reorganise, restructure or to consolidate the existing framework into a single law for the purpose of Insolvency and Bankruptcy.