The Haryana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as HSPCB) directed Rs. 45.40 crore penalty for violation of the Environment Act provisions. Additionally, the government has proceeded with criminal prosecution against delinquent builder in the environment court of Kurukshetra.

The banks are aware of the builder’s liability to make all the payments to the bank according to the signed agreement among the bank, builder, and buyer. Therefore, the banks cannot chase or harass the buyers for payment of due amounts under the SARFASI Act, 2002.

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.

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 Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application and held that it is a case of collusive Application whereby the Corporate Debtor is trying to seek benefits of Moratorium u/s 14 of the IBC and other advantages in accordance with other provisions of IBC 2016.

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.

If the Application filed under Section 7 meets all the requirements, then also the Adjudicating Authority has to exercise discretion carefully to prevent and protect the Corporate Debtor from being dragged into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process mala fide.

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.

Calcutta High Courts held that moratorium under Section 14 of IBC also includes criminal proceedings for cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thus parallel proceedings against a corporate debtor cannot be allowed.

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.

Gujarat High Court dismissed Essar Steel’s petition and refused to grant any of the reliefs sought by Essar Steel. The Gujarat High Court moved quickly and efficiently, and the order was issued within 10 working days of Essar Steel’s filing of the case.

Insolvency Professionals eligible to be appointed as Liquidator alongside written consent form within 10 days of the direction issued, and upon receipt of the proposal, the order of appointment of Liquidator is passed.

IBC is economic legislation and that when it comes to economic legislation, flexibility should be given to the legislature because no economic law can be fool proof at its inception.